Why Don't People Get it?
Socialism (the real-life version) collapsed nearly twenty years ago—vicious regimes founded on the principles of Marxism, overthrown by the will of the people. Following that event we've seen these once decrepit societies come back to life and become a major source for the world's prosperity. Trade has expanded. The technological revolution is achieving miracles by the day right under our noses. Millions have been made far better off, in ever-widening circles. The credit is wholly due to the free market, which possesses a creative power that has been underestimated by even its most passionate proponents.
And yet, even now, after all this, professors stand in front of their students and decry the evil of capitalism. Bestselling books make anticapitalism the theme. Politicians parade around telling us about the glorious things that the government will accomplish when they are in charge. And every evil of the day, even those directly caused by the government (airline delays, the housing crisis, the never-ending crisis in public schooling, the lack of health care for everyone) are blamed on the market economy. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (82)
Well said Lew.
Published: January 1, 2008 8:37 AM
A man I have great respect for recently and breathlessly recommended a book titled, "The Shock Doctrine." So I decided to check it out by googling the author and reading the reviews on amazon.
It turns out that this "great" book is yet another anti-intellectual attack on capitalism and endorsement of BIG government (statism). Of course it garnered all sorts of glowing reviews from the usual suspects in the dinosaur media and in academia.
As Lew points out there is a lot of work to be done. The barbarians are still in full control of many institutions that weild great influence with the general public.
Happy New Year to all of you!
Published: January 1, 2008 9:38 AM
Socialism appeals to mankind's natural inclination toward envy and jealously. Right after the collapse of the USSR, a journalist who had lived in Russia for a decade and married a Russian wrote that the average Russian would rather starve to death than witness his neighbor become wealthier than him. I think that is a universal sentiment. Socialism is not about helping the poor; if it were, socialists would hate Castro instead of worshipping him. Socialism is about punishing the rich guy and thereby feeding on envy and jealousy.
When Christianity was stronger in the West, envy and jealousy were considered evil. Socialism made envy, jealousy, and covetousness respectable, even admirable.
Capitalism requires the ancient Christian morality to thrive, otherwise, people give full vent to their envy and covetousness. No amount of education will change that.
Published: January 1, 2008 9:59 AM
It's curious that no capitalism-supporting conservative writes in defense of ETHICAL CAPITALISM by pointing out the dark aspects of capitalism--those bad aspects that cause otherwise rational people to support socialism; that is, an understanding of what's wrong with capitalism - UNETHICAL PRACTICES - might prompt conservatives to fight socialism by IMPROVING capitalism. Read about some negative aspects of capitalism in here:
http://corporateamericawhatwentwrong.blogspot.com/
Published: January 1, 2008 11:07 AM
Why not tell that to the conservatives then? There aren't very many here, nor are there many who support 'capitalism' as in the status quo, so I'm not sure what the point of all this is.
Published: January 1, 2008 11:21 AM
AMEN.
Published: January 1, 2008 11:57 AM
"When Christianity was stronger in the West, envy and jealousy were considered evil. Socialism made envy, jealousy, and covetousness respectable, even admirable"
Really? What about this?
"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
Matthew 19:24
Published: January 1, 2008 12:18 PM
It is important to remember that there often is NOT a choice between "survival and liberty" as the measures reducing liberty often do not increase security.
The nationalization of airline security is a case in point.
Newspapers and other media outlets (and the government itself) often run fake bombs and guns past the nationalized security - all the humilation at airports does NOT ensure air passenger safety.
Indeed the Bush Administration itself understod that the move would not ensure such safety - but when the demands from the Democrats (and others) became very strong the Bush Administration caved in.
It is the same with whole "Homeland Security Department" the Bush Administration at first opposed this idea, rightly thinking that it would be a bureaucratic nightmare, - but when the pressure was put on they collapsed.
What is worse - sincere socialists like Senator H. Clinton (and the lady is a socialist - although of the installment plan "Fabian" variety) or people like George Walker Bush who KNOW various forms of statism will not work but go along with them anyway?
I wonder if he really ever believed in some of his own government expanding suggestions - such as "No-Child-Left-Behind", or just proposed these schemes because the opinion polls said they would be popular.
Published: January 1, 2008 12:51 PM
anti fundementalist.
When a camel carrying goods came to the smallest entrance to Jerusalem it had to be unloaded to go in to the city - hence "eye of a needle" (the nickname for the gate).
In short "you can not take it with you".
Whatever wealth you make in this world stays here.
Published: January 1, 2008 12:55 PM
Richard "ethical captialism".
Why not just say "a sense of honour" (English spelling - honor, if you prefer).
A man who breaks his word and lies and cheats will eventually get found out and people will not do business with him anymore - unless he has some big government granted advantage of course.
But certainly there are lot of dishonourable people in business - and they mostly scored very high in college "business ethics" courses (which tells you all you need to know about such courses).
They are normally the sort who talk about "social justice" a lot and give lots of money to leftist political causes.
Adam Smith may have made a lot of errors in economic theory - but his thought that people who claimed to trade for the "public good" were normally crooks had a lot of truth in it.
Published: January 1, 2008 1:01 PM
I can only second what fundamentalist has said.
It's envy and jealousy that are roots of all evil.
Though it's not only that. I don't doubt that there are some who believe in socialism because they only want to do good.
It's also a matter of language. In Germany being "social" also means being "friendly". Many socialists think that capitalism is about fascism, lack of care and sympathy.
Many socialists think that socialism and philanthropy are the same (like capitalism=fascism+heresy).
That of course is because of lack of education.
Always big kudos to the Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand Institutes for educting, and in the first place for believing that education can change your enemies - rather than killing them.
But - like Cormac McCarthy in his novel "Blood Meridian" and Robert Greene in his book "Power" have stated: people don't care for arguments. People have already made up their minds. And rarely will anybody succeed in changing their believes. People will feel "changed" or "enlightened" whenever people like Castro or Hitler come around. It is not because they were changed but because some man has put words into what they were feeling and harboring in their hearts for a long time.
One time out of fun and sarcasm I muttered that the rich, the productive, and the creatives should be punished just for being smart and feeling better. The people around the table took it very seriously, agreed and nodded. I made it pretty obvious that those actions were against human rights and that was being sarcastic, still they were in favor of "punishing the rich".
Another phenomena I've been observing is that whenever you counter argue against socialist ideas the other one stops talking me. They just kill the conversation. But they don't leave, instead they're waiting for different topic to come up.
I'm not talking about college students but about the people on the streets. Uneducated people are always the majority, and they will vote for our next leaders.
Published: January 1, 2008 1:09 PM
anti: "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
I'm not sure what your point is. What does the fact that the rich people in Jesus' day refused to believe he was the messiah have to do with capitalism?
The Bible has numerous condemnations of the rich, which is odd since many of the greatest heroes were rich, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon. The thing to keep in mind is that the common ways to get rich in the Bible, and through most of history, were through theft, extortion, warfare, and other methods. The great heroes of the Bible didn't get their wealth by those means but through legitimate farming and business.
Richard: "...an understanding of what's wrong with capitalism - UNETHICAL PRACTICES - might prompt conservatives to fight socialism by IMPROVING capitalism."
I think you confuse systems of organizing society, such as capitalism and socialism, with faults of human nature. The system does not change human nature; human nature is what it is--a mixture of good and evil. It is popular to think than mankind is naturally good and the society he lives in makes him good or bad, but on closer observation I think you'll find that to not be true.
Real capitalism is based on the rule of law and punishes criminal behavior such as fraud and theft. Capitalism can't prevent criminal behavior any more than it can change human nature, but neither can socialism.
It's interesting to me that socialists don't see any of the faults that socialism has displayed so abundantly over the past century. In their effort to save mankind from the evils of capitalism, socialists murdered close to 100 million people in the last century. Is murder not unethical? So I'm really confused as to why anyone would think socialism holds a higher moral ground than capitalism.
Published: January 1, 2008 1:39 PM
Resources in this world are FINITE and for one person to be healthy you need 1,000 people unhealthy and this is unethical. Capitalism and communism are two side of the same coin. Today’s markets are in the ends of few monopolist multinational corporations. This kind of capitalism is just as bad as communism.
Published: January 1, 2008 2:51 PM
ariosto: "...for one person to be healthy you need 1,000 people unhealthy and this is unethical."
This is the ancient idea that one person cannot increase his wealth except at the expense of another. All economics for the past 400 years, except for Marxism, have proven this to be false. This fallacy is the heart and soul of Marxism and socialism.
However, the axiom that one person can gain wealth only at the expense of another was true for most of mankind's history because most people gained wealth through some version of theft. The situation changed only with the advent of capitalism in the late 16th century. Since then, new wealth has been created at an astonishing rate and the whole world is much wealthier today than it was before capitalism.
Contrary to Marx's silliness, the West didn't steal wealth from anyone; we created new wealth through savings, division of labor and technological progress.
Published: January 1, 2008 3:06 PM
ariosto: "Resources in this world are FINITE..."
This needs addressing as well. It implies that wealth is limited and that one group can become richer only at the expense of another, like a poker game. It's true in the abstract sense that the world's resources are finite. However, in the real world, man has only begun to discover and develop those resources. The resources still hidden below the surface of the earth are enormous and will last for a very long time. But developing them will take more savings and progress in technology. So abstractly we can understand that a limit to resources must exist because the planet is limited in volume, while practically speaking, in relation to the resources discovered and used, the planet's resources are not limited.
Published: January 1, 2008 3:11 PM
Anti,
You have to distiguish between biblical truths and biblical laws.
Saying that it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom (a truth) does not invalidate the laws against coveting and theft (10 Commandments).
Nowhere in the Bible does God mandate the forced equalization of wealth based on envy.
Published: January 1, 2008 3:21 PM
Fundamenalist
my point is quite simple: christianity condemns wealth. It is a doctrine based on envy and jealously. That is the reason it so popular.
Published: January 1, 2008 3:34 PM
A point to ponder: the type of person that blames 'business' for the bad effects of governmental interventions is the same type as the one who blames the police for dutifully enforcing bad laws. This suspicion may be unwarranted, but I suspect that part of the source is a desire to blame the most convenient target when frustrated.
Published: January 1, 2008 3:38 PM
Either socialism or capitalism would work perfectly in a perfect world but unfortunately both have to deal with egoism and corruption. Egoism is far more dangerous than envy or jealously and it is the egoism of some privileged group that is causing most of the suffering, injustice and humiliations in this world. Until the power of those groups is not rescaled it doesn’t have any sense to talk about "good" capitalism because the "good" part would be spoiled no matter what.
Published: January 1, 2008 3:56 PM
Why don't people get it?
The short answer Lew gave was that they were not educated properly in economics (paraphrasing).
Well that is correct however I believe that many are educated in correct (Capitalistic) economics
and they still don't get it. So what gives?
I believe most people want to the right moral thing and have been miseducated morally. Many rich have a guilt complex (I believe Gates and Buffet are in that camp) about their wealth and give a large portion to charity as a consequence.
They of course have that right, but if asked about their motives they would probably give collectivist reasons.
No matter what religious affiliation one encounters it is collectivism they preach. Non have anything good to say about Capitalism they all detest it. So then the problem lies in the moral miseducation of the young that most carry with them for the rest of their lives.
Published: January 1, 2008 4:01 PM
I find this all to be very interesting, however since the advent of Social Security (and possibly before that), this nation has embarked on a path leading farther and farther away from the fundamentals of capitalism. I see no proposals from anyone (electable) to return this nation to sound economic principles. And I hear no voices from readers of this blog defining any solutions.
Published: January 1, 2008 4:10 PM
anti: "christianity condemns wealth. It is a doctrine based on envy and jealously."
Not quite. The Bible condemns many rich people, but not wealth itself. It condemns rich people for the crimes they commit to get their wealth and for what they do with their wealth. But if acquired morally, through savings, hard work, investment, etc., the Bible considers increased wealth a blessing from God. Many important figures in the Bible were rich.
realistic: "Either socialism or capitalism would work perfectly in a perfect world but unfortunately both have to deal with egoism and corruption."
I guess whether something works well depends on your definition of working well. History proves that capitalism has worked very well in an imperfect world, ending starvation and raising the standard of living of much of the world to amazing levels in terms of world history. The only accomplishment of socialism has been massive death and destruction. I'm curious as to what your definition of "working well" might be.
Published: January 1, 2008 5:10 PM
Why Don't People Get it?
Because they see no way other than government action to solve specific societal problems.
Once the principle of governmental action (the idea that one is bound by laws he does not accept) is conceded in one instance, then by logical extension, this principle must also be conceded in other instances.
Thus, one who asks why people don't understand the fundamental contradiction of socialism, must also look within, to see whether there are also instances where he himself accepts the principle of government action.
This is why there was principled libertarian reaction recently to the post proposing a gold standard. By implication, this post was proposing a governmentally enforced currency standard, and so apparently accepting the principle of government action. But then why not governmentally enforced values in other areas?
There are also legitimate libertarian concerns about the Ron Paul candidacy, which if ultimately successful, would result in using the mechanisms of democratic socialism to enforce the values of some libertarians. This could very well reinforce the notion that libertarianism is but another form of governmentally enforcing one group's values, rather than the movement providing an alternative to such a system.
Why don't people get it? is a great question for all libertarians to ask themselves, and not only a question for posing to others.
Published: January 1, 2008 5:12 PM
-------
Isn't it remarkable? Socialism (the real-life version) collapsed nearly twenty years ago ... and yet, even now, after all this, professors stand in front of their students and decry the evil of capitalism.
-------
Yes, it is is remarkable. Politicians have never sunk lower in the public esteem. There is widespread cynicism about government competence. Yet, as soon as a new social wrong is perceived, people scream for immediate government action.
It is like a junkie screaming for a fix, although sceptical that it will do him any good.
Published: January 1, 2008 5:31 PM
You know hrbiel, that sneak and dodge started getting really old around, oh, November 5, 2007. If you recognize that there is one candidate who "gets it," why undercut the realization by immediately parroting the media's belief that he is not electable? Instead, join us in making him electable. I hear far too often "sure, he's best, but he's not electable, so I'm going to vote for..." If everyone who believed that voted for the best choice instead, he'd win.
As for non-political solutions, you're looking at one of them. The question is not "how do we fix things tomorrow?" it is "how much better are things than they might have been had Lew Rockwell decided to watch cartoons instead of founding Mises?" Austrian economics may be small, but it has been growing exponentially since the 70s, and continues to do so. The campaign of that "unelectable" person you refer to is driving more and more people to learn what the Austrians are all about. We are building and strengthening the remnant, and the remnant will survive once again.
However, I feel the need to question to praise heard so much and so often of Walmart. Doesn't Walmart obtain its stores through eminent domain?
About the apparent paradox discussed by fugerm - I maintain that it results from the inability of many people nowadays to comprehend abstract ideas. Government incompetence is an abstraction.
Published: January 1, 2008 5:40 PM
"Resources in this world are FINITE"
And thus an economic system that can actually calculate must be put into place. Capitalism turns the problem of scarcity into one of coordination, for the most part.
"and for one person to be healthy you need 1,000 people unhealthy and this is unethical."
Whence does this nonsense follow?
"Capitalism and communism are two side of the same coin. Today’s markets are in the ends of few monopolist multinational corporations. This kind of capitalism is just as bad as communism."
Yes, who'd have thought that hampered market economies allow special interests to dominate in them! Also, doublespeak is cute the first couple of times, but it becomes tiresome after a while.
Published: January 1, 2008 5:51 PM
{ " Why Don't People Get It ? " }
...well, they don't get it -- because 'socialism' generally seems like a natural way things should be organized in day to day life.
Conditioned experience in families, clans, tribes, kingdoms, nations, religions, organizations, work groups, businesses, etc. -- convinces most people that the human 'group' is the primary value & purpose in life; the 'individual' rightly gets the terms & conditions of his life from the 'group' -- and rightly subjugates himself to the group objectives & rules. Groups almost always have leaders (deciders & rulemakers)-- and a mass of obedient followers. Why should the economic sphere be different ?
The basic American 'family' is a classic socialist organization, with individuals (children) subjugated to the group goals & rules... as determined by the caring planners & rulers (parents). Most everyone is raised that 'family' way-- so it seems quite natural to extend
that family organizational mode to much larger groups, like local and national government.
Casual human experience for thousands of years made it obvious that the Sun circled the earth -- anyone could directly observe it from sunrise to sunset every day... and laugh at anyone who disagreed. It took until the Renaissance and Copernicus to counter such mass ignorance via science and education.
Basic economics is no more intuitive than astronomy -- it takes knowledge and education to understand it... experience also works, but is a very slow and haphazard teacher. Instead, the American government school system has been a spectacular success in socialist indoctrination of the populace... and neglect of basic economic education.
People-Don't-Get-It because they have been heavily conditioned NOT to get it.
Published: January 1, 2008 5:51 PM
ariosto, your assumption that "wealth" is finite and a zero-sum game is demonstrably false. Silicon, the basis of semiconductor chips and fiber optics, the very foundation of immense wealth today, is just sand. 100 years ago, as worthless as it is possible to get. A few ounces of rocks, to a farmer, less than worthless. Refined, they become the basis of the inexpensive information technology that allows you, a nobody, to post to this website for _nothing_.
Or petroleum. Close to worthless 200 years ago. Is anyone going to try to argue that oil isn't a source of wealth?
One healthy person means they are healthy for a reason. Even the emperors of old died of what are now trivial diseases, quickly and _cheaply_ cured. As has been said many times and in many ways, one does not get wealthy by selling 100 refrigerators to the rich. One gets wealthy by selling 100 Million refrigerators by making them cheap enough for anyone to buy that wants one.
Trade is a positive sum transaction. Everyone is wealthier than they would be without it.
realistic, sorry, but capitalism provides an answer for egoism that is not found in any other system: voluntary interaction. No matter how big the ego, the egoist must still satisfy his customers in order to flourish. Too big, too greedy, potential customers will be unwilling to voluntarily enterinto deals and the egoist falls, like the giant multinational corporation ITT, into failure and obscurity.
Only where coercion is available as a means of acquiring wealth, the political means, is it possible for an egoist to achieve wealth at the expense of others.
Published: January 1, 2008 6:36 PM
"This is why there was principled libertarian reaction recently to the post proposing a gold standard. By implication, this post was proposing a governmentally enforced currency standard, and so apparently accepting the principle of government action. But then why not governmentally enforced values in other areas?"
There is a world of difference between voluntary trade and theft. Government enforces many values
and that is why we have it. Unfortunately Government is also in the business of creating money out of thin air which is theft. Gold-Money is not theft but created honestly and it's government's proper duty to enforce that honesty.
Throughout all of history Gold-Money has shown its honesty and people have accepted it. So what is the problem?
Published: January 1, 2008 6:41 PM
Extremism in all forms is destructive. Capitalism in a vaccuum would be destructive to many. Government balances out the flaws in capitalism. Government has it's problems too, and every now and then they need to be reformed or overthrown. I have about as much faith in complete capitalism to make the world right as i have faith that total government would also make the world right. This argument is silly. There is no perfect system.
It's funny that the haters of all forms of government believe there would be such thing as benevolent capitalism. Too funny...we don't have to look to far into history to see the ills of unfettered capitalism. To think that the strongest of companies wouldn't band together to rule and control everyone else is naive at best.
Corporations are a form of government. They are run buy people. Corporations suffer the same flaws that governments do. People don't change whether they run a country or a government. They do stupid things and decide out of self interest even when it's not.
The mises have a lot of good thoughts on economics, but they go too far in their belief that anarchy is somehow desirable and good, and if corporations step in and replace government, well aren't they government? I wonder if the devoties of this extreme philosophy have ever worked in a big corporation. You really see that as desirable? I pity you if you do.
It's a funny phenomenon that we see everywhere. Individuals are capable of doing right and good. Groups of people often find it easier to do wrong and bad. You would think it's the opposite that right was easier, but it's not. Group think is real and it's a powerful force that often makes it impossible to act smartly and right as a unit. Governments and corporations suffer this problem. Enron and worldcom are 2 of many corporate examples of this. The war in Iraq and credit bubble are 2 government examples of this.
I really don't get all the anti-government ferver from the mises disciples and the blind eye to all the corporate malfeasance.
Published: January 1, 2008 6:59 PM
The repetition of 'moderate' nonsense like this, based on a fundamental misunderstanding both of libertarianism and the capitalism we advocate, is what is funny, laughable and even sad, as if the dilemma is between corporations on the one hand and government on the other, nevermind that the one is a vassal of the other. Please preach to those who still fall for this sort of nonsense. I pity those who fall for it.
Libertarianism is not about and has never been about the status quo sans the State, except when advocated by the most vulgar of 'libertarians'.
Published: January 1, 2008 7:12 PM
BTW, for anyone who is a regular here, it is somewhat absurd to suggest that a blind eye is turned towards corporate malfeasance...
Published: January 1, 2008 7:15 PM
bill: "Capitalism in a vaccuum would be destructive to many. Government balances out the flaws in capitalism."
Capitalism can't exist in a vacuum. Capitalism requires the rule of law, especially with regard to property, and equality before the law. The first capitalist nation, the Dutch Republic, was also the first nation in Europe to implement the rule of law and equality before the law, and the first to really protect property. Anarchism does not eliminate law; it depends upon natural law and common law courts with private inforcement agencies.
I realize that public education has taught the nonsense that the government corrects mistakes in capitalism for over 70 years. I was taught the same thing. Then, on my own, I learned that this is nothing but Keynesian lies. It has taken me at least a decade to unlearn the crap I was force fed in college about economics (I have a master in econ), but I'm beginning to get there. One of the greatest lies of the 20th century is that Keynes rescued capitalism from itself through governmental intervention in the marketplace. If you care about the truth, you'll at least read "How Capitalism Saved America." Until then, you might explain what flaws in capitalism are that the government corrects.
Published: January 1, 2008 7:18 PM
I subscribe to the mises.org mailings and an overwhelming majority of the articles are anti-government rants. I've never read a single article from mises.org that identifies a failing of capitalism. If you can point me to one, I'd love to read it. I've even debated the author's of some of these articles, and their temperament and logic is childish at best. It's sought of like a bad marriage; the husband blames every problem on the his wife always failing to see how he contributed to the problem or visa versa.
Published: January 1, 2008 8:36 PM
Inquisitor, oh much is written about corporate malfeasance, but the story line is always the same: the government made them do it. It's complete nonsense as if there would be no corporate malfeasance if corporations were permitted to be entirely free of government rules and regulations. It's laughably silly, and it conveniently ignores history.
Published: January 1, 2008 8:43 PM
One must wonder if you've even read the articles - rather, the argument is typically that they are aided by governments in getting away with as much as they do. Governments themselves are no angels, of course. So far your own laughably silly rants indicate very little in the way of a genuine understanding of what we advocate. So again, spare this nonsense for those who would buy it.
Published: January 1, 2008 8:48 PM
inquisitor, it's funny the authors never shared your point of view. In fact, they defended it. If you send me your email address, I'd be happy to share with you the conversations. You may find them enlightening.
Published: January 1, 2008 9:00 PM
"Too funny...we don't have to look to far into history to see the ills of unfettered capitalism."
Bill, I beg you to please enlighten me about these ills found in history.
Published: January 1, 2008 9:06 PM
nemo, when you identify one failing of capitalism of which you all seem to acknowlege is present, i will point out the history, but since you ask the question, you actually believe there is no history. I'm not sure I can enlighten a zealot with facts.
Published: January 1, 2008 9:13 PM
Good sir, when you made the comment: "Too funny...we don't have to look to far into history to see the ills of unfettered capitalism." it is obvious that you made that comment with history in mind. Now, all that I am requesting is that you educate us, we unknowing bufoons, with the example that you had in mind. Would it not be obvious, if I was asking you to enlighten me, that I did not already know, and could not figure out this historical fact that you cite.
Once again, I do beseech you, Bill, to educate us with this historical fact for I do not, an do wish to, know what you speak of so that my own understanding will be heightened.
Published: January 1, 2008 9:21 PM
In regards to why the message of Capitalism has not been (is not being) preached is partially due to the fact that our teachers don't know capitalism. Look at any states/counties test scores vs other industrialized nations. By high school graduation we are hoping to teach reading and some math. Our teachers (k-12) are not, as a whole, capable of educating on economics. Certainly most lack real world experience. They went to school for 15-20 years only to start working for a school. They have always been on the dime of tax payers, they know nothing different.
Published: January 2, 2008 12:16 AM
Christianity and the Rich. The bible speaks of blessings. God Blesses. I believe all provisions are God given. For some reason I was born with ambition and a knack for making money, I fear I would be miserable in a socialist environment with the personality God gave me. One could argue today that we are in a pseudo capitalist economy with win-win characteristics... you can choose in America to be an entrepreneur or on welfare and live much better than most of the world with either decision.
Published: January 2, 2008 12:26 AM
Antifundamentalist,
"my point is quite simple: christianity condemns wealth. It is a doctrine based on envy and jealously. That is the reason it so popular."
You are wrong. The Church does not condemn wealth; BUT it does encourage those of us who are able, to be charitable in whatever way(s) might be available to us.
Additionally, as Lew pointed out in his article, charitable donations are down because so much of our income is collected in the form of taxes. To respond to this problem, the Church engages in its own form of capitalism, via fundraising. Such activities include pancake breakfasts, bake sales, rummage sales, Chinese auctions, Las Vegas and Bingo nights, bazaars, picnics, golf outings and special educational programs. Many parishes operate gift shops and book stores (some of which sell their goods on the Internet).
All these activities require effective marketing practices, and they must deliver a satisfactory product/service or else the congregation (customers) will choose to go elsewhere.
Published: January 2, 2008 1:20 AM
Matt said
'Why don't people get it?
The short answer Lew gave was that they were not educated properly in economics (paraphrasing).
Well that is correct however I believe that many are educated in correct (Capitalistic) economics
and they still don't get it. So what gives?'
response: I am not convinced that many self-labelled capitalists have been educated in 'correct' economics either! The Western (undergrad) economics curricula of my own acquaintance tended to be bogstandard neoclassicisism, split into 'micro' and 'macro' components. And the latter was presented through a formulaic deconstruction of the tired old Monetarist vs Keynesian debate, in which interventionism is taken as axiomatically desirable, and the debate is reduced to the hollow question of whether Fiscal or Monetary policy is better. Thats not economics, its politics!
The proponents of the free market (whether they be neoclassicals, chicagoites, or Austrians) have by and large not done themselves any PR favours by proudly calling ourselves Capitalists, for this plays into the hands of Leftist polemics. I try to avoid the term myself wherever possible as it invites misunderstanding.
And besides, serious misunderstanding of economic fundamentals is responsible for the Gekkonian ( and yes, Randian) rhetorical justification for 'capitalism', which nailed its colours to the twin masts of 'self-reliance' and 'competition'. Both of these values are diametrically at odds with the fundamentally co-operative nature of the free market.
Appended below is the text of a 3-page article on this very misunderstanding, and the rich ironies it gives rise to. In the context of this blog thread, the most important sentence it contains is this:
'By and large, all of the Western social ills the Left has blamed on the ‘unfettered’ free market ever since Marx, arose out of the rent-seeking behaviour that inevitably follows Capitalists getting into bed with the State.'
David
Viva Co-operation!
Or, why 20th century ideological discourse missed the point.
By David Chaplin
During the 20th century, the term ‘capitalism’ became a crude synonym for the ‘free market’, even by enthusiastic proponents of liberty and free choice. This is a pity, because the term was originally coined by Karl Marx as a pejorative. Rightly so, but not for the reasons he would have had in mind.
Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing.
The fundamental characteristic of a free market is that participants are free to engage in transactions willingly, without coercion or impediment by the State, and without the interference of any other parties who are not involved in or affected by that transaction. Capitalism is something different (except when it suits any individual capitalist to present himself as a free market proponent): where Capital, as one of the factors of production, engages the legal and coercive powers of the State to advance its particular interests at the expense of any other factor of production, or at the expense of consumers. Or where it engages with the State to capture tax revenues(1) .That’s Capitalism, and it is in ideological terms no different to the labourist Marxist prescription, which seeks to advance the narrow interests of Labour at the expense of the other factors of production, for example landowners or investors.
This crucial distinction is rather subtle, not at all obvious to either the Left or the Right – thus both sides of the bipolar debate have happily come to conflate free markets with capitalism. This is probably because most capitalists rhetorically endorse the broad principles of the free market, having recognised that their earnings and profit generation are at root dependent on the willingness of consumers to buy their products ( which I suppose puts them one step closer to enlightenment than socialists). However, it is a rare capitalist who will pass up an opportunity to boost his earnings through rent-seeking (2) , whether through protectionist tariffs, or restrictions on imports, or monopoly licensing, and this tendency is utterly at odds with the very idea of a free market.
The United States of America is widely regarded as the poster-child of Capitalism, and this is popularly equated to it being the prime example of the Free Market - by its detractors and supporters alike. However, like many others, the US is not a free market. Its tax code, body of Law, and the very way its political system is structured, is characterised by a thickly entangled complex of regulations, interventions, restrictions, and other forms of government interference, each strand calculated to protect and entrench the narrow interests of one or another special interest grouping – thousands, millions of them. Many of which, incidentally, are fundamentally incompatible with one another, generating wasted costs while mutually negating the very benefits they are aimed to secure. Thus, America may indeed be the home of modern Capitalism, but it is hardly more than an insult to the pure concept of the free market. Granted, the American market might be relatively free, and arguably freer than those in many other countries, but ‘free market’ is no longer its defining characteristic – how could it be with a Federal government share of GDP of some one-third?
In short, Capitalism in practice makes no distinction between profits gleaned from rent-seeking and those earned from the productive exchange of value, and it actively develops political institutions which entrench that vice. The Free Market, properly constituted, has no room for rent-seeking at all and naturally disincentivises it. The misunderstanding of this distinction is the central flaw which invalidates the broad socialist thesis: By and large, all of the Western social ills the Left has blamed on the ‘unfettered’ free market ever since Marx, arose out of the rent-seeking behaviour that inevitably follows Capitalists getting into bed with the State.
It’s not competition, it’s co-operation.
There is another, deeper, misconception associated with the free market. This is partly due to the way elementary (neoclassical) economics is taught in schools and universities, and Capitalists simply love it: the Doctrine of the Virtue of Competition. Companies everywhere regard their mission as some sort of sports match against their perceived competitors, some treating it as all-out war. (And some even extend the concept of competition to their trading partners, customer or supplier alike, regarding them as opponents to be beaten down as much as possible, stopping just short of the deal-breaker). The free market is defined by competition, they say, it’s dog eat dog out there, you gotta be the toughest, the biggest, meanest, leanest fighting machines to get your slice of the pie, ‘cos if you don’t, somebody else will steal your lunch. And that’s Good! Equally, and citing more or less the same words, communists and other pink-tinted ideologues bemoan the implicit violence in this view of competition , regarding it as a sad loss of compassionate human values, once again erroneously conflating the ugly elements of capitalistic rent-seeking with the purity of the free market.
Both sides of this view of competition missed the point completely. This misconception arguably does more to entrench economic illiteracy across the spectrum than any other factor, (except perhaps the undead labour theory of value which I won’t go into here). And it makes companies, CEOs and entrepreneurs everywhere lose their way in optimising the performance of their enterprises in their quest to generate value in the hands of their customers where none existed before. Furthermore, it has, in Western, capitalist economies, given rise to the most absurd forms of legislative State intervention to somehow enforce competition through the barrel of a subpoena, backed by the threat of jail or other violence against person and property. Whatever that is, it is not a free market.
Granted, competition in a free market does indeed have a structural role in assuring the productive and allocative efficiency of a market. But it is a subtle and indirect form of competition, completely unlike a sporting match, or a war, where the competitors square off and battle it out directly until a winner emerges and the losers fade behind a cloud of disgrace. Let me let you in on a little secret: The defining characteristic of a free market is not competition, but co-operation. All economic activity, however or wherever it takes place, is defined by the fact that each participant in any given transaction does so willingly, because each expects to gain from having done the transaction. Absent the jackboot force of compulsion from the State or any other party with guns, any party to a transaction is free to choose not to do it if he believes he’ll be worse off for having done it. That’s freedom. You do the same every time you pick up an item in the supermarket and then put it back on the shelf because you have better things to buy with your earnings. In a free market, the interaction between any buyer and seller, in every transaction, represents a friendly, voluntary, mutually-beneficial act of co-operation, with millions upon millions of them every single day making up an economy that accumulates wealth among its participants, each gaining in direct proportion to the value he places in the hands of others. That’s a free market, and it works.
The competition in the free market economy is of an indirect, second-order nature, a residue. If I and my customer are co-operating between ourselves to mutual benefit, that means other suppliers in the same line as I am have lost the opportunity to sell him something similar to what I am selling him. But I need never meet this competitor directly, still less fight with him. That’s neither a war nor a sports match. If I rip my customer off by charging him too much or by supplying shoddy goods, he is more likely to do business with someone else next time. The customer chooses where he gets the best value, and its up to me to offer better value than what others do. Modern corporates and CEOs would do well to remember this: If your mission is focussed on beating your competitors at all costs, what does this say about the importance of your customers? Focus your attention on your customer, your partner in co-operation, keep him happy with your product, service and pricing. And likewise, keep your supplier happy with his co-operative relationship with you. Do this, and everything else falls into place naturally.
Strange bedfellows.
We have seen that the ideological debate that characterised the 20th century, simplistically polarised into capitalism vs communism, free market vs socialism, or simply Left and Right, was based on several economic misconceptions. Indeed, the simplistic bipolar nature of the debate led to some very strange bedfellows: Conservatives on the right, who by and large supported economic freedom, also tended to support the regulation of private moral choices through State force, and of course censorious suppression of dissent. And yet on the Left, those who favoured State intervention in markets also tended to support personal liberties, free moral choices, and free speech ( But only in so far as they didn’t get to actually run a country, when the tune inevitably changes to despotism overnight). It is ironic that either side of this polarity contained half of the Libertarian prescription, strapped to a fundamentally incompatible other half. It seems hardly more than an accident of history that Libertarianism found itself popularly lumped in with the conservative Right. This despite Murray Rothbard’s brief attempt to align the Libertarian movement with the New Left of the 60s. It seems this failed because it proved too difficult to get the Left to understand economic fundamentals and see Marx’s Big Mistake for what it was.
Conclusion – what a waste of ink.
That observation aside, there is rich irony in the observation that the ideology of the Left, while full of the rhetoric of mutual co-operation, egalitarianism, freedom, and compassion for the less fortunate, required nothing less than totalitarian coercion, and the wholesale removal of freedom from all citizens, to advance its aims, simply because the ideology required human beings to behave in fundamentally non-human ways, and of course, it has failed fairly rapidly in every known case.
Likewise, on the ‘right’, the mainstream capitalist ideology of the West based its ideological case on the rhetoric of competition and self-sufficiency, both of which narrow values are completely at odds with the co-operation and mutual benefit that characterises free market trade. Indeed, co-operation and mutual benefit are the defining features of reciprocal altruism, itself deeply embedded in human society: it comprises the very essence of what it means to be human. And yet, behind the rhetoric of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, or ‘freedom and democracy’, the capitalist State has stealthily and relentlessly increased its activity in regulating and constraining just about all areas of human activity and individual choice. Regrettably, this capitalist despotism takes longer to fail than socialist despotism, because within its framework, there is a larger scope for citizens to engage in free, voluntary economic activity among themselves, and this permits them to build value, which blunts their outrage, even as their State confiscates some of that value to fund the perpetuation and entrenchment of its coercive powers.
Thus it was that the polarised 20th century debate between left and right turned out to be a colossal waste of breath – the real issue wasn’t collectivism vs individualism, or communism vs capitalism, or even workers vs bosses. It was always State vs liberty, coercion vs free choice. Barring a few marginalised visionaries who kept the spark of classical liberalism (3) alive, hardly anyone in the 20th century even noticed.
(1) Consider Halliburton, whose core competency is hoovering up tax dollars. That company could not exist without the State as its primary customer.
(2)‘Rent-seeking’: the use of political power or force to capture value from other people without yielding value in return. Not to be confused with mutually-agreed hiring of property between the owner and the user.
(3) ‘Classical liberalism’ as distinct from ‘liberalism’. The distinction is important, because the term ‘liberal’ had been hijacked by the Left by the 1960s, by which time it had come to label the mildly pink part of the ideological spectrum. This forced the successors to the classical liberal tradition find another name – libertarian
Published: January 2, 2008 1:24 AM
I think there's a huge definitional problem with both capitalism and socialism.
In the case of "capitalism", to many people it means the status quo. The right claims to represent "capitalism" while defending the status quo of corporatism, and the left then opposes the status quo thinking that it is "capitalism". The left tends to identify capitalism with government favoritism and privilege to big buisiness. The right uses defends government favoritism and privilege to big buisiness, and calls it "capitalism".
Two contradictary principles are at work in the contemporary views of capitalism: free economic activity and government-buisiness patronage or collusion or government protection of buisiness and property titles (regaurdless of prerequisites of justice). "Vulgar" defenders of "capitalism" end up conflating the two, defending property titles irrespective of wether or not it came about as a consequence of free market activity, and defending aspects of the current system and corporations with the theory of a free market that does not currently exist.
In the case of "socialism", two contradictary principles are at work: government ownership and worker's control or public ownership. In actual fact, government ownership takes away worker's control and takes ownership away from the actual public (I.E. private citezens). If socialism is worker's control or public ownership of the means of production, then ironically or paradoxically, "capitalism" (as in private property rights) is the best realization of socialism possible.
Socialism, as in a system of government ownership and intervention, is self-defeating in the attempt to obtain its stated ends. The actual long-term goals of socialism (prosperity for the masses, equal rights, the withering away of the state) are incompatible with the means its adherants typically advocate (state intervention, central planning, etc.), with the exception of the handful of voluntary socialists out there). This is what Rothbard meant when he described socialism as a "confused, middle of the road doctrine".
Sometimes I feel like both capitalists and socialists are functioning as apologists for certain aspects of the status quo. "Vulgar" libertarians seem to defend "the corporations", property titles and property classes as if a free market currently exists, even if they readily admit out of the other side of their mouths that one currently does not exist. They also may tend to deny the historical exploitation of workers and common people and paint a strangely pretty picture of fuedalism.
Socialists, on the other hand, even most of those of the anarchistic variety, seem to defend the state. Those who still hold on to Marxian logic seem to think that the state can be used in the present as a pretext to a future stateless, classless society. Of course, as history has shown, you just end up with a leviathan government that practically owns everything. In short, the synergy between buisiness and government is intensified to the point where the government literally becomes big buisiness itself in communism.
So I kind of tire of the capitalism vs. socialism debate.
Published: January 2, 2008 2:47 AM
IMHO said
'Antifundamentalist,
"my point is quite simple: christianity condemns wealth. It is a doctrine based on envy and jealously. That is the reason it so popular."
You are wrong. The Church does not condemn wealth; BUT it does encourage those of us who are able, to be charitable in whatever way(s) might be available to us'
Speaking as a devout agnostic with a fair amount of exposure to Christian doctrine, I can't help noticing that the moment religious moralism enters into any debate, rationality is suspended. ( Indeed, digressing for a moment, I expect to see howls of incoherent outrage from one or two rabid creationists in response to Ptak's 'evonomics' post very shortly. Please, please, prove this prediction wrong).
That said, Im with IMHO on this one. There are many flavours of christianity and they are not all consistent with one another. But as a general observation , I think it is fair to say that it is the naked pursuit of money (or wealth) FOR ITS OWN SAKE that is not regarded as a virtue in Christian circles. EARNING money, and such accumulation of wealth that may follow, on the other hand, is viewed by most Christian thinkers as morally sound, with additional virtue accruing if some of that wealth is charitably given away (voluntarily, of course: there is no virtue in coerced charity).
To paraphrase into modern economic terminology, the sin associated with money lies in rent-seeking, not in earning it through trade or effort.
Hence the oft-misquoted idiom : the LOVE of money is the root of all evil' the first 3 words are too often omitted.
Published: January 2, 2008 2:55 AM
"inquisitor, it's funny the authors never shared your point of view. In fact, they defended it. If you send me your email address, I'd be happy to share with you the conversations. You may find them enlightening."
All you need do is name them - I know which authors are guilty of vulgar 'libertarianism' and which are not.
Published: January 2, 2008 8:00 AM
David, do you have a link to that article btw?
Published: January 2, 2008 8:01 AM
Qoute from fundamentalist: "Socialism appeals to mankind's natural inclination toward envy and jealously."
I think you only have half the argument. Socialism also appeals to the do-gooder and family inclination of mankind. These two attitudes coupled together give socialism its power.
If I want to do-good, and there's somebody with more material wealth than me that makes me feel jealous, it's a very short walk to the idea that the person who has more wealth should fund my do-gooder notions. Coupled with democracy and the elimination of restraint, either constitutionally or culturally, socialism has all the appeal, incentive and moral justification it needs to prosper.
In fact it easily becomes an obligation for everybody to fund all perceived do-gooding, no matter how obscure or specialized. The examples are everywhere.
My favorite current example is digital TV. Have you seen the commercials? Digital TV is great, its so great that Congress passed a law requiring everybody to switch exclusively to it in a year. But if its so great, why would you need to pass a law requiring it? Wouldn't people simply switch on their own if it was so great?
Then there's compact fluorescent light bulbs. Again, something that is so great that you will have to use them whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter what you as an individual can afford or even prefer. The greater good of the collective is more important than individual preference. If there's added cost, we'll simply get those rich guys to pay for it. Besides we have the power of democracy to validate our demands and force compliance.
Its a perfect system (as long as the money holds out).
Published: January 2, 2008 8:29 AM
Inquisitor said:
'David, do you have a link to that article btw?'
response: no. I posted it in its entirety because
a) I wrote it a few months back, and only had the text in a file on my hard drive, and
b) Its not been published anywhere before, beyond airing on a private discussion forum, and now here.
Id be happy to send it to you in Word format if you really want it (send me a request off-line), but that won't contain anything more than what was posted in this thread, so there wouldn't be much point.
Regards
David
Published: January 2, 2008 8:42 AM
Ah, I see. No need to send it, I just thought it was particularly well-written and gets an important point across that many seem to miss. You should try get it published at someplace like Strike at the Root.
Published: January 2, 2008 8:58 AM
HenleyT makes an excellent point about our being conditioned by the family social structure, which point I had made to Gary North some years ago, after he had engaged me in mental combat over the question of whether or not libertarianism can be functionally, successfully applied to at-large society.
Here's a copy of my note to him:
"How do you, sir, run your family household as a parent/provider? Various operations of the family household are the models for every form of government, or lack thereof: Either your children are family members - citizens, so to speak - or merely consumers residing in your household. Do your children hold a particular status in relation to your and your wife's authority? Do your children view you as a tyrant by your authority or as a democratic arbiter, or some combination? Such must be the nature of any State--an expression of some particular form of family dynamic within the household, as someone must be in charge - either autocratically or democratically - because there exist inherently bright adults and dumb adults, inherently bright children and dumb children. Ergo, some kind of organization - some degree of combination of cooperation and authoritarian control - is necessary for people to live in peace in family, community or nation-state, as nature has dealt unequal abilities to adults and children alike. Or do you decide who is in charge in your family by the one with the most money? Does the money flow in an elitist sort of way, with you as provider and taxpayer and, ergo, decision-maker? Or does it flow willy-nilly for purposes of maximum consumption? Is your family a dictatorship, kingship, democracy, oligarchy of two, or libertarian commune? All political affiliations are understood by examining family dynamics--by examining the various psychological dynamics of how members within the nuclear family may relate to one another, according to the abilities nature has dealt to you and yours."
Published: January 2, 2008 11:18 AM
Profit generates money which generates power and who has power rules. For a very free market society you should reset the current world and start from scratch. Unfortunately you cannot reset a system without a revolution (and any revolution has his victims). The very enemies of your free market paradigm are not the socialists, the communists and the like but the very wealthy today’s capitalists. Look how it is difficult for the software market to compete with a monopolist like Bill Gates. There are lots of monopolies out there which you will never be able to revert without using force (i.e. the oil industry). Any freaking good is made in the "communist" China. Soon they will be so powerful that they will be able to buy the most of the USA (and for profit your lovely American capitalists would not have any problem to sell it).
Published: January 2, 2008 11:30 AM
Money directly does not translate to power - but with an institution like the State available, it might be able to. Using force against corporations/individuals who themselves have advantaged themselves of the State is not immoral, as far as I am concerned.
Published: January 2, 2008 11:50 AM
Two excellent questions are posed in the below link: "Where Do You Stand? Where Do You Fall?"--regarding the impact of UNETHICAL CAPITALISM on the West ((there are a number of links in there to eye-opening articles, about what we Americans are about to face--and IT AIN'T PRETTY!)):
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index88138.htm
Published: January 2, 2008 12:55 PM
Day by day I become more and more disillusioned. Yes, the government is the root cause of all social and economic problems today. Yes, the solution is the free market; it is almost trivially obvious; in fact, I would venture to say that a free market society would be (near) Utopian. However, the crux of the issue here is not lack of education or imagination, it is psychological manipulation. So long as the vast majority of humanity has been indoctrinated into a false morality, they will stubbornly hold onto their collectivist belief, regardless of the evidence against it, or the evidence of its exploitative and depraved nature. To do otherwise causes immense cognitive dissonance that the average human being is incapable of handling, let alone surmounting.
You think I am referring to socialists. Perhaps, but not exclusively. I am also referring to Christians. Hoppe makes the argument about the need for statist intellectuals. What makes you think the the most powerful institution in the world, the religious institution, has not been commandeered by the state? The reality is that if you follow the history of Christianity, you will find that it is a blind rip off of previous religions and was institutionalized by Constantine for a decidedly political purpose (Watch me! (26 mins)). It is a sham.
Jews, Mulsims, Hindus, you are all in the same boat. Even skeptics and so-called "freethinkers" are guilty for having turned science into a religion (you blindly repeat anything that the scientific community or the cool skeptics tell you is true).
If you can't stop worshiping your false God's, how can you expect the statists to stop worshipping theirs? After years of debating these (and other) ideas with believers or all stripes, I am firmly of the opinion that the answer is not to Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe, but Carl Gustav Jung.
Published: January 2, 2008 2:18 PM
Sorry, the link doesn't work.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972
Published: January 2, 2008 2:20 PM
John,
"However, the crux of the issue here is not lack of education or imagination, it is psychological manipulation."
If I read you correctly, then you believe as I do that the problem lies with what is being taught and the way it is being presented. Unfortunately, whenever I try to discuss solutions to this problem, the home schoolers and private school advocates go on the attack, saying that I'm some sort of statist who's advocating the theft of their tax dollars, when all I'm trying to do is to focus attention on a problem that's not going away.
By the time these kids graduate high school and college, they're so completely immersed in ideas of political correctness and entitlement (not to mention misinformation), that it's almost too late to do anything about it.
I've said before that in getting from Point "A" to Point "B" there's got to be a transitional period. If you don't talk about a strategy for the transitional period, then you'll never reach Point "B".
Published: January 2, 2008 4:02 PM
This book is not an attack on capitalism, rather a critique of the excesses of capitalism (after last year, wouldn't we all agree that there are some excesses?)
Published: January 2, 2008 6:19 PM
Bob: "...a critique of the excesses of capitalism..."
It's difficult for people to distinguish between the failure of a system and the failures of people within the system. The concepts are very clear in quality control statistics. The mean of measures over time represent the system whereas the invidivual data points are random variations around the mean. Of course, if enough of the data points stay on one side of the mean long enough, the mean will shift and the quality guy will know that he has experienced a systematic change.
I'm not sure how to relate that to economic systems, but here goes. If you look at the excesses of a system, are they exceptions or the rule? Corporate malfeasance is big news in the US because it is rare. If it were common, like car wrecks, no one would pay attention. In socialism, on the other hand, corruption of officials and poverty are so wide spread that it should be clear that they're systematic, part of the system.
No capitalist ever claimed that the system would make men perfect. Only God can do that.
If by excesses of the past year you refer to the mortgage loan fiasco, you should understand that the Austrian Business Cycle Theory places the blame for it on the government. Real capitalism does not have government intervention in the economy. You should distinguish between the current economic system of the US, which is quasi-socialist, and real capitalism, which is laissez-faire.
Published: January 2, 2008 7:17 PM
"This book is not an attack on capitalism, rather a critique of the excesses of capitalism (after last year, wouldn't we all agree that there are some excesses?)"
The "excesses" you refer to are the reults of government interference with capitalism. The recent problems, and most of them before, have been caused by a LACK of capitalism.
This is a common misconception throughout history, purposely distorted by all manner of collectivists: The government interferes with the free market, it causes problems, and the problems are blamed on capitalism itself, not the government interference that caused the problems in the first place. Then, the ultimate irony is that more government interference is always the "cure" that is proposed and implemented, starting the cyle all over.
Just to be clear: what we have in the United States is NOT free market capitalism. It is a mixed economy with a signficant degree of government iterference. Taxes at the federal, state and local level consuming over 1/3 of the nation's output. Significant industries are government protected monopolies - banking, electric utilities, all basic infrastructure, telephone, TV and Radio, etc. Government subsidies and welfare distort the market even further. Not to mention the Federal Reserve which continually destabilizes the economy by trying to fix every short term economic problem (most caused by previous Fed actions) with the same prescription: more fiat money.
This is NOT free market, laissez-faire capitalism. Not even close.
Published: January 3, 2008 1:29 AM
If I read you correctly, then you believe as I do that the problem lies with what is being taught and the way it is being presented.
Partly, yes, but I am afraid that my conclusions are far more ominous for the human species. What many people fail to realize is that it is very easy to psychologically manipulate human beings. If this manipulation takes the form of indoctrinating a false morality, then no amount of education can ever bring the victim back. The cognitive dissonance is simply too much for the human mind to cope with. We see this repeatedly with God and the state.
I leave you with a great quote from Tolstoy:
Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly taught to others, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:12 AM
well said John, that quote from Tolstoy is a keeper.
I try (not always successfully) to live by a maxim that is calculated to immunise myself from just this failing:
'The moment you think you're right, you've stopped thinking at all'.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:33 AM
Inquisitor, how about this? Name the authors who aren't guilty of vulgar libertarianism so that I may come to read and understand the more pragmatic/mainstream ideology.
One further question, do you see any negatives/weaknesses in capitalism?
Published: January 3, 2008 7:01 AM
"If this manipulation takes the form of indoctrinating a false morality, then no amount of education can ever bring the victim back."
DEFINITION OF EPIPHANY: As a feeling, an epiphany is the sudden realization or comprehension of the essence or meaning of something. The term is used in either a philosophical or literal sense to signify that the claimant has "found the last piece of the puzzle and now sees the whole picture," or has new information or experience, often insignificant by itself, that illuminates a deeper or numinous foundational frame of reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphany_(feeling)
People have epiphanies all the time...the result of incongruities between what has been taught and what is actually being experienced. They frequently occur during times of crisis, but can also occur as the result of day-to-day events.
You do not give sufficient credit to the resiliency of the human mind/spirit. I believe a great example of this would be the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. On a less sensational level, one can also experience an epiphany during the so-called "mid-life crisis".
Published: January 3, 2008 7:24 AM
Bill, I do not pander to evasive trolls. Either name then, or be gone.
Published: January 3, 2008 8:01 AM
"One further question, do you see any negatives/weaknesses in capitalism?"
In my opinion the human race is not evolutionarily set up for capitalism. The human mind, among other serious flaws, is much better at measuring relative quantities than absolutes. Because of pecking order behaviors evolutionarily ingrained in most animals, humans are geared to be satisfied with their relative position in society much more than their absolute material position. For example, the current lower half of the economic ladder in the U.S. contains some of the richest people not only in the world today, but who have ever lived. These are also some of the most miserable (psychologically, not materially) people on the planet. That is because the human mind cannot live with the fact that others have more, regardless of how much they have.
There is no known cure for this.
By the way, none of the socialistic or totalitarian government forms have ever fixed this problem, they have simply captialized on it and exploited it, ironically in order to create even more uneven societies, like the Soviet Union or Castro's Cuba (Fidel Castro is one of the richest people on the planet).
Unfortunately, I believe only human evolution has the opportunity to fix this shortcoming - or make it worse.
Published: January 3, 2008 9:04 AM
The opposite is either true. The human mind cannot live with the fact that others have less. As an individual you interact with others all the time and misery is contagious. If in your home you are the only one being happy and your kids and wife are unhappy that happiness won’t last too long. Individuality is an illusion (it would be real only if you were the only one on earth).
Published: January 3, 2008 11:44 AM
You do not give sufficient credit to the resiliency of the human mind/spirit.
Perhaps. After all, the freedom movement seems to be gaining tremendous momentum in the last few years. However, and this goes back to my original point, the fundamental problem, the crux of the issue, is not lack of education, it is not lack of imagination, it is, and always will be, the frailty of the human psyche.
How many times have you attempted to educate a friend or family member only for them to refuse to accept reason and logic? Think about it. God, the state, everyone has his vice. Some have "epiphanies" about religion, some have it about the state. It is very rare to meet someone who has had it about both.
But wait, there is one more... turns out that large elements of modern "science" are also a sham. http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html
How many have had "epiphanies" about this?
Did I say one more, I meant two more: what about the NWO? How many have had "epiphanies" about that?
When I meet another individual who has the intellectual integrity to recognize all of these is when I begin to have hope.
Published: January 3, 2008 3:03 PM
The issues shouldn't be whether or not capitalism is purely ethical, or whether capitalism can save everyone from everything. Clearly it cannot.
Rather, the questions should revolve around how resources are most efficiently allocated, and by whom? And utlimately what method of economic allocation is going to cause the most benefit and the least amount of harm? Under which system will the fewest people starve? Under which system will the most diseases be cured? Under which system does technology improve the standard of living while lowering the most commodity costs?
Can we eliminate pain and suffering? No. Can we minimize it? Yes. And clearly the minimization comes from the practical application and implementation of free markets.
Mises' ECONOMIC CALCULATION ARGUMENT is mathematically, philosophically, and even ethically indisputable, and as long as we're on the subject of ethics, ponder this: who is more unethical -- one who profits from his or her innovation, or one who advocates a system that perpetuates the inefficient allocation of resources to the detriment (and deaths) of millions?
The question should be rhetorical.
Paco Ahlgren
www.disciplinenovel.com
Published: January 3, 2008 4:22 PM
I have to say that your ideas are fascinating but unfortunately they lack of reality.
"Mises' ECONOMIC CALCULATION ARGUMENT is mathematically, philosophically, and even ethically indisputable" is indeed very disputable. Philosophy and ethic are for their very nature relatives and subject to any kind of relativism and personal interpretation thus cannot be used to affirm anything. My favorite philosophical line is that if there was an absolute true we where all fallowing it instead of not agreeing on anything. Nowadays also mathematic cannot be used anymore as a standing point. In quantum physic for example mathematic cannot be applied since phenomena are probable but never sure.
Published: January 3, 2008 7:08 PM
It has yet to be successfully disputed, though. It is, of course, a logical-praxeological argument; labeling it 'philosophical' is bound to lead to confusion.
Paco, what do you mean 'mathematically'? I have no knowledge of mathematical expressions of Mises' proof.
DS, I agree. Free markets face the "problem" that they are complex, dynamic entities that are in many ways bigger than the sum of their constituent parts. This makes their workings all the more difficult for Joe Average to comprehend.
Published: January 3, 2008 7:23 PM
You're preaching to the choir regarding disputability -- or more appropriately, falsifiability. And you will find no bigger proponent of that philsophical precept, in the Popperian sense, than me.
So while Mises Economic Calculation Argument is certainly subject to falsifiability, it has not, to my knowledge, been falsified with any convincing evidenciary basis. I've looked for years, challenging leftists at every opportunity, but no one has ever procured anything even approaching a strong counterargument. And this is why, I think, most free market advocates who truly understand Mises's argument, are so confused and appalled that socialism even still exists as a viable proposal, much less thrives in so many hearts and minds.
For my part, I don't find it so surprising; socialism is convenient, shallow, and easy to adopt. Markets are much more complex, and unless one is willing to step back and take a more Taoistic perspective, they can be daunting.
Mathematically, Mises's argument relies on the scarcity of resources, and an inability to calculate such scarcity without price structures. Clearly, the more those structures are manipulated, the more mathematically distorted scarcity becomes.
Paco Ahlgren
WWW.DISCIPLINENOVEL.COM
Published: January 4, 2008 9:46 AM
While a great many folks think that economic education is the reason "why people don't get it", I would submit that the reason is more tragic. The reason people continue to support Marx's bankrupt morality is greed. The lack of concern about taking money from others by government decree for redistribution among the needy is the real problem. Redistribution no matter how altruistic in appearance is still stealing. Most people would not think of walking into their neighbors house and taking the food and money they find there. But that same morality doesn't apply if the government is doing the appropriation.
Never mind the lack of concern of the odd 200 million deaths that Marxism has facilitated in China and Russia.
The problem is apathy and greed. The failure to connect the dots is not ignorance. It is thevoluntary abandonment of ethics that hopes to create a political system that will repay the sellout for their treachery against those that only want to earn their own way.
Published: January 4, 2008 2:24 PM
Thomas is correct IMO. I believe this is also the reason Rand was very careful in how she fleshed out her moral system of rational egoism.
Published: January 4, 2008 5:54 PM
Thomas Puckett: "While a great many folks think that economic education is the reason "why people don't get it", I would submit that the reason is more tragic."
Some don't think about it. Some don't want to think about it. Some don't care to think about it. Some don't care anyway.
Published: January 4, 2008 6:16 PM
People are drawn to socialism out of fear -- not greed or jealousy. It's the security in belief that they will be fed when they have no food, it's the security in belief, they will be cared for when they are sick, it's the security in belief they will be housed when they fallen on hard times. Fear is the greatest motivator of all species. When people are jeolous and greedy, they steal. They don't need the state to do it for them.
Published: January 4, 2008 8:44 PM
Inquisitor, just as I thought. There aren't any exemplary authors.
Published: January 4, 2008 8:54 PM
Bill, just as I thought. You can't name a single one. You couldn't respond to Nemo either.
Published: January 4, 2008 10:11 PM
inquisitor, i don't wish to call these authors out in such a way in public forum. Provide your email and I'll be happy to carry the conversation with you offline with names and actual conversations. I don't wish to bring negative attention to people in a forum who didn't ask for it -- even if i find their work inimical. It's that simple.
Published: January 5, 2008 11:30 AM
oh, and as for nemo, I don't wish to get into a fools debate. He obviously doesn't believe there are any flaws in capitalism as you don't either. Your minds are inaccessible. Really, what's the point of sharing an opinion with either of you when I know your conclusion?
Published: January 5, 2008 11:38 AM
Ho hum, so be it then.
Published: January 5, 2008 11:48 AM