Why Capitalism Shouldn’t Die

In the wake of the financial crisis that’s engulfing the world right now, there have been many on the Left that proclaim that capitalism will cease to exist, since it alone (in their deluded eyes) has caused this collapse.

I’m astonished at their ignorance and lack of gratitude for the monetary system that has, singlehandedly (well, along with the establishment of the United States), lifted much of the world out of poverty and into a culture of freedom, free from the monarchs and Communists.

These Leftists spout useless drivel about how it’s capitalism’s fault that people are losing their jobs, that it’s capitalism’s fault that the banks did ill-advised lending, that it’s capitalism’s fault that people are in poverty in undeveloped countries, that it’s capitalism’s fault for somehow putting a gun to the head of our legislators and “making” them institute a $700 billion bailout for these banks. It’s not capitalism’s fault, and I can guarantee that those people who lost jobs wouldn’t have had them in the first place without it, that the banks would commit more fraud without it, and there would be more government intervention without it.

And then they say that capitalism is not moral; that it doesn’t give people living wages and it makes them poor. Except, naturally, they forget that capitalism has lifted hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty and into work, that it allowed people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to make millions with a vision for the future and the drive needed to make that dream a reality. Capitalism has let people make money with their work and their skill. It allows the individual to pursue the course that they want (economically), and they are rewarded for their competence – nothing more, nothing less.

It is these hypocrites that do not know what they’re saying when they say, “Capitalism must go!”, because they, truly, don’t have an idea of what capitalism is. They scream that the capitalist system must go, but they have no idea what economic system to put in its place; it is this fact that makes these people ignorant and nothing more than sheep. They don’t understand that, in eliminating capitalism, you must erect something with the structure of socialism (perhaps even Communism) in its place, which would surely destroy the framework of this country and all the worlds’ economies. Surely, if we’re going to remove capitalism, where capital is held and moved primarily by the private sector, we must consolidate it within the public sector – giving more control of the economy to the state.

It is this that reveals the true hypocrisy of these fools. These are probably the same people who (correctly) say that our government has grossly mishandled and misled us into two wars, the government that is putting most of its money into feeding the military-industrial complex in doing so, and is corrupt to the core. But, in destroying capitalism, these people are advocating letting the very same government run our economy, giving out handouts as they wish. How does that make any sense? Our main legislative body has a single-digit approval rating, and these imbeciles think that we should give them more control over the country?

This is why capitalism cannot and will not fall: the citizenry will wake up and realize that more (bad) government isn’t the remedy to the situation. In fact, it’s more poison.


Share It

Share this post using del.icio.us del.icio.us  Share this post using Digg Digg  Share this post using Facebook Facebook  Share this post using Google Google 
Share this post using Live Spaces Live Spaces  Share this post using MySpace MySpace  Share this post using Newsvine Newsvine  Share this post using Reddit Reddit 
Share this post using StumbleUpon StumbleUpon  Share this post using Technorati Technorati  Share this post using Twitter Twitter  Share this post using Yahoo! My Web Yahoo! My Web 

Advertisements

  1. hpx83

    Thank you for a good post. Always cheers me up.

    //hpx83 Save capitalism

  2. Although a good post as usual, brett – in each inch I read in it it repeats again and again why capitalism has got us here.

    But I still want capitalism defining without the free market analogy – because that is what always come into it. The free flow of capital can be prescribed in any economic system – but when you bring free market economics into it you begin to get the failures we have today.

    With the free market espoused by so many – the US should now be just about getting out of the slave trade.

  3. You cannot have capitalism without the free market, Will. The government should be a competitor in the market with everyone else. That’s when we get the best results, I think.

    (Though, there are some things that can’t be privatized. Like the army… Military-industrial complex, anyone?)

    When you have a free market, you get innovation and occasional failure. When you have socialism, you have total stagnation and no innovation, because state paychecks are guaranteed. There needs to be an incentive to work – that incentive is money. Restricting the flow of money decreases the incentive to work and thus results in a lack of innovation.

    Free market economics is what makes the world go round, Will. It’s the free market. You say that it’s the free market’s fault for slavery (or at least imply it). I reject that; the slave trade was a result of the bigoted European mindset that people’s skin determined their worth as a man. It was a cultural thing, not an economic thing. Yes, people made money off of slavery, but it was WRONG. Ideally, in a free market where slavery was frowned upon, the slave trade would die because no one would be buying slaves. But, obviously, people didn’t think like that.

  4. hpx83

    “The government should be a competitor in the market with everyone else. That’s when we get the best results, I think. ”

    THIS is the fundamental flaw in our so-called “free” market system. If you have to compete with the party that sets the rules, how could you ever win?? The government should be removed completely from all markets. The government should exist strictly as an institution that guarantees that contracts are not broken, that threats of force are not used to get business contracts etc.

    How could anyone compete with someone who
    a ) Has an infinite amount of money available (since the gov. is running the money printing biz)

    b ) Has no incentive to set prices to a level where it actually earns a profit (because as we all have seen – the taxpayers will foot the bill when there is no profit)

    c ) Is driven mainly by the whims of politicians, which means that any regulatory freak that gets into a political position is allowed to regulate away the competition?

  5. hpx: Point taken. I guess I am wrong on that point.

    Though, there is a tiny mistake on your part – the government has an infinite amount of money (theoretically) because it controls the interest rate through the Fed as well as the loans out of the Fed banks, not because of “printing money”. Much more money exists in theory (electronically in banks) than physical cash.

  6. What you have, and I think mistakenly done, Brett – is take the free market as being capitalism – it isn’t.

    Capitalism is about the free flow of capital – that is seen as cash money these days. But it can mean things such as property, but that is by the by.

    Free market economics is there for one simple reason – to make those who can afford the capital investment richer. That is another word for greed.

    Even the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, said that the labour (Workers) are more valuable than gold – or something to that effect, it is a long time since I have read Smith.

    So, if the father of capitalism says that – what does the free market say?

    This, again coming back to my first point, means that with the free market running rife – the US would still be in the dark ages. You would not have, far, far from it, the military you have today – the free market would not allow it. And, and more importantly, you would not have taxes – of any kind. Each to his own, as it were. The free market does not work! It has another name – anarchy!

    The only way to have that does work is the free movement of capital that is regulated by a governing body. Hence, and I do giggle at this each time I type it, you were born of a socialist state, so was anyone else who was born on this planet other than those people who were born in a fascist state.

    The US government is a socialist government – it always has been, the only difference is that it keeps telling you that it isn’t – and people believe it.

    Capitalism is socialism but with less regulation.

    We come back to Adam Smith – he foresaw that the worker would ‘evolve’ to something more than just a labourer and in that he also foresaw the moral (religious) obligation that the worker should be looked after in such a way that that labour should be readily available.

    Do we read universal healthcare there? Do we read living conditions whereby the worker can sleep well and be available for work?

    Free market thinkers should be made to re-read Smith every two weeks – that way they will see their obligation to those who work for them is better treat because the worker is more valuable than what they produce – and with that moral obligation you take out what regulation should enact upon – human greed!

    The free market was based upon free trade – it has been bastardised over the years to mean, “Greed is good”.

    As a socialist I do agree with free trade, I do agree with the free movement of capital – but all this must be for the common good – any ‘real’ socialist will tell you the same thing!

    The ‘Red’ socialist is no better than the ‘free marketeer’ who believes that free trade should benefit the individual because they will see the immediate benefit thereof to the exclusion of others – that isn’t socialism.

  7. Sir, the preposterousness of your claim is astounding. You cannot have capitalism without the free market. That is capitalism, simple as that. Socialism and capitalism cannot coexist.

    Will, I challenge you to not act greedy. Any food that is put on your plate, give it away. Sell your home to someone who needs it more. Give your clothes to someone else. Stop working and stop making money. After all, anything we do in our own interest is greedy, is it not? Become “un-greedy”, and you will find yourself dead.

    Why is it viewed that that acting in your own self interest is bad and greedy? It’s not.

    Will, how Smith decides to look after the worker is by giving him money. Money is the universal reward for the worker, for the producer. He can then use that money to buy whatever he wants – he EARNED that money. Why in the hell are you going to take away his money for the abstract of the public good?

    And who determines what the “common good” is? Giving government the ability to determine what constitutes need is a surefire way to corruption and stagnation. When a worker is working for others’ wages, the house of cards will fall apart since there is no incentive to work.

    And the US is not a socialist state, nor will it ever be (knock on wood!). The government has the right to regulate the economy with the same principles that it regulates its citizens. Thus, fraud and theft are illegal in the marketplace.

  8. hpx83

    “Free market economics is there for one simple reason – to make those who can afford the capital investment richer. That is another word for greed. ”

    No, free market economics is there to allow those who wish to trade services do so. These services may consist of investing, giving loans, buying products, getting insurance or any and all transactions that people may think of. You think that wanting to prosper, to increase your wealth by making good investments (which in turn leads to a profit for the entire society – good investment = cheaper products and services for all), to secure a future for those you care about etc. is bad? Or will you agree that greed by your definition is good?

    “This, again coming back to my first point, means that with the free market running rife – the US would still be in the dark ages. You would not have, far, far from it, the military you have today – the free market would not allow it. And, and more importantly, you would not have taxes – of any kind. Each to his own, as it were. The free market does not work! It has another name – anarchy! ”

    I think you are going a bit wrong here. There is a movement called “anarcho-capitalism”, but it is by far the only “free market movement”. Capitalism demands a free market – and people in a free market will act capitalistic. But there is an important difference between anarchists and the rest of us free-market proponents – the rest of us do not want to abolish government, we just want it to be minimized so that it is only there to protect us from crime, invasion, and breaking of contracts. Without protection from thieves and robbers there can be no free market.

    “Capitalism is socialism but with less regulation. ”

    No, modern socialism is an attempt to have capitalism for prosperity, but add regulations that keeps it back for safety. Capitalism does not work on a leash.

    “The free market was based upon free trade – it has been bastardised over the years to mean, “Greed is good”. ”

    Greed is good. A constant strive for profit is what makes capitalism work. You can’t have “strive for profit as long as the majority think it is to a decent degree”. Once again, capitalism does not work on a leash.

    “As a socialist I do agree with free trade, I do agree with the free movement of capital – but all this must be for the common good – any ‘real’ socialist will tell you the same thing! ”

    What is the “common good”. Who decides it? Why aren’t you a communist – if the government should rule over the flow of money (towards the common good), why not take it to its full extent? The “common good” cannot exist in the same system as “free flow of capital”, because the flows will not be towards everyones definition of the “common good”. Who sets this standard, and doesn’t this person/group of people/government just simply take control of all the money and direct it towards the “common good”. Communism. Capital that is forced in any direction for any reason is by definition “unfree”

    “The ‘Red’ socialist is no better than the ‘free marketeer’ who believes that free trade should benefit the individual because they will see the immediate benefit thereof to the exclusion of others – that isn’t socialism.”

    You want to be able to say that you are for free markets while putting restraints on them. That’s sort of like eating your cake and still having it, isn’t it?

  9. hpx83

    I see here that leapsecond and I leapt out to almost identical defenses. Nice post there leap 😉

  10. You want to be able to say that you are for free markets while putting restraints on them. That’s sort of like eating your cake and still having it, isn’t it?

    Exactly!

  11. thebeadden

    This topic is probably way beyond my scope.

    I could care less who is running the show IF I can pay my bill, eat AND have extra comforts, good health care and money saved.

    One thing that scares me is, like Leap said, some things should remain Government controlled. When we start allowing our natural resources to be privately owned. I don’t like that.

    The same goes for the military. It should not be privatized. Someone has to be held accountable. They run around with freedoms they shouldn’t have.

    I think all things should have a certain amount of oversight. And every private entity should have to be held accountable for all their actions and outcomes. Many times they get away with too much. Or they can’t be sued.

    I say screw you. You want to make the money, you have to own up.

    I have no problem being the lower class worker in this world. I wouldn’t want the stress that comes with power.

    But for everything to work. The people should be able to live decent and comfortable lives.

    If they can’t work that out. F them all.

  12. Bead: You can only have those things based on the quality of your work – if you’re unemployed you (obviously) can’t have those things.

    Every private entity should bow to the law, but there shouldn’t be these insane restrictions and regulations that, for example, curb profits and redistribute money without the consent of the worker. It’s not right for companies to get away with highway robbery by exploiting tax loopholes and breaking contracts and committing fraud, I’m with you there. But to say we should penalize, say, the oil companies just because they control a resource in very high demand is crazy, as is the idea that there should be a “maximum” wage.

  13. thebeadden

    I’m not talking penalizing oil companies. But look at how many of them walk away and leave an environmental mess behind. So few have been forced to clean up the toxic mess. If they want the profit, they have to realize they also have to spend to ensure public safety. Not having tax payers clean up after them.

    Also a country should be the one to profit off it’s resources. The government should be making huge amounts of income from it. Once they can no longer generate an income. Because they do give so many breaks to large corporations, who will end up footing the bill? The tax payer.

    If we have to be held accountable for everything we do, the same should go for these entities.

    The system is a bit messed up right now and could use a little tweaking.

  14. thebeadden

    I forgot to add that you said it would be based on quality of work. Maybe I am not ‘getting what you mean by this’ but:

    I’m really good at what I do. And I am well paid for it. But there are people even better and quicker than me. People that have come here from other countries. They don’t make close to what I do.

    Quality means nothing anymore when someone can be exploited, they have no problem screwing them over. It happens all the time.

  15. Bead: Those people are paid less of their own volition; if they thought the wage was too low, they could’ve sought work elsewhere for a higher wage.

    I’m with you on the environmental destruction by corporations, but, then again, people should vote with their wallets (in an ideal capitalist society) and buy their goods elsewhere if a corp. destroys land. Government should be there to make them pay up. That’s not the sort of regulation I’m talking about, though. Don’t confuse anarcho-capitalism with plain ol’ capitalism.

  16. thebeadden

    Leap, that is much easier said than done. All they have to do is turn around and look back at the hundred or so waiting in line to replace them. Maybe you haven’t been in that situation before. But many people have and still are. There are certain industries geared to getting cheap labor. They either put up or shut up. They ARE replaceable and they know it.

    Not that there aren’t many companies out there that do respect the people who work for them. There are still battles to be fought for the working class.

    I don’t expect some kind of world where everything is grand for everyone. It is just that sometimes there is no excuse for exploiting people other than they can get away with it. There has to be a better way of dealing with it.

    We are told and expected to play by the rules. We are penalized when we don’t. Yet too many of the upper class get the breaks. Change is needed.

  17. And there you go – these workers are expendable, because they are low skill, and are a dime a dozen. The abundance of workers to do low skill work creates low wages across the board, since most are willing to work for such low wages. If it is low skill work, then OF COURSE it’s going be low paying.

    I see where you’re coming from though; but if low skill work payed well, there would be no incentive to do higher skill work, like become a lawyer, doctor, etc.

  18. thebeadden

    A person should be able to live on their own and not suffer. I know someone who works their tail off. She was a housewife and mother. She became single not by choice. She had no skills to speak of. So she trained and took courses to get a decent wage job. The problem was her age. She 58 when she finished and these courses were short.

    She can get no government help. Her ex has nothing to be taken to help her situation.

    She works everyday. Yet she can’t afford cable. She can’t make long distance calls. She can barely eat well.

    It is not right when a single person cannot live decently. There is nothing you can say to me that will change my view on that. There is something wrong when a single person cannot live life as well as a couple.

    If they can’t help by giving subsidy, then make sure there is affordable housing available. So many older people are in this situation. Too many people.

    We keep handing these companies bailouts and breaks. It would be nice if people would make them take notice by watching where they spend their money and forcing changes through their wallet. But it won’t happen.

    They tend to forget that while they do provide the jobs, without these people, they wouldn’t be able to have what they do.

    Anyways, now I’m getting moody. So, I’ll check back tomorrow. 🙂

  19. I was not sure that I understood enough about your country’s systems and history etc to comment on this post at first but after reading the comments thought I would give it a go.

    I tend to agree with The Bead and maybe that is not surprising as we probably are a similar age. I also feel that we need to have a capitalist society but in my case it is to provide the wealth to help the population who need the help! Now before you scream handouts at me let me say that if you have a good economy and a certain section of the community is living with the degree of wealth that is virtually obscene then I feel that it is the far bigger obscenity to have the situation like Bead says we have the working poor.

    I do not know the answer to this but do not think that I am a hypocrite or a fool for wanting more even distribution of wealth…and I do not know who it is you are calling that as do not live there and am not really up on your economic news…apart from the news that is on the World News on CBS and ABC but I actually applaud them for trying to find a more just way for the millions of working poor to live well.

    You know it is not just the unskilled who have the issues of unaffordable living and I so agree with the bead that affordable housing is the first step. Really in this day and age to think that housing prices and that includes mortgages and rental should take up so much of the average wage is amoral …not to mention the price of everyday living….food heating etc

    Anyway think that is it for me …got to get started on dinner




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: