Not to mention that more then enough food is produced to feed the world while millions die each year due to starvation....
We definitely need more Soviet-style road planning, comrades.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
what do they not give men pants in the soviet union?
lolwut?
Anyway @ the OP, I don't think Capitalism necessarily puts all resources to their "best" or "most efficient" use. However in general it does exponentially better than any other system we have come up with.
"Not to mention that more then enough food is produced to feed the world while millions die each year due to starvation...."
Capitalist socities have never seen a famine. If the poor nations of the world allowed private property, kept their currencies stable, and let individuals persue their own interests, then the quantiy of food would cease to be a problem.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
If the poor nations of the world allowed private property, kept their currencies stable, and let individuals persue their own interests, then the quantiy of food would cease to be a problem.
Your definition of capitalism is so restricted and limited that you can simply ignore any counter examples as being "not capitalist". This essentially just excludes any failed example of capitalism.Yet, you would be happy to tell me how much capitalism has improved the life and the standard of livings and defend sweatshops. But then whenever a criticism is raised, those same actions are turned around and looked from the other side, for being "state intervention, regulated markets", and etc...
Either say capitalism never existed and that the current corporation is completely different from your percieved idea of capitalism, or stop praising the status quo.
And yet you can criticize socialism by taking the Soviet Union as an example of communism?
failed example of capitalism
For example?
I Samuel 8
Define capitalism.
Just to be sure. People here seem to have very demented definitions of political idealogies.
Someone here told me that half the world is socialist, so....
non-coercion.
"Yet, you would be happy to tell me how much capitalism has improved the life and the standard of livings and defend sweatshops."
No one defends sweatshops. You are misrepresenting our position to appeal to emotion.
"But then whenever a criticism is raised, those same actions are turned around and looked from the other side, for being "state intervention, regulated markets", and etc..."
Most of the criticisms I have seen about the "free market" have really been criticisms of interventions into the market by governments. Your example of sweatshops is a good one.
"Either say capitalism never existed and that the current corporation is completely different from your percieved idea of capitalism, or stop praising the status quo."
No one is defending the status quo, which is a soft form of fascism or corporatism.
To be fair, a lot of Austrians have defended sweatshops. The fact is that sweatshops pay on average twice as much as other employers in the countries that use them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8
Edit: Yup there you go.
"To be fair, a lot of Austrians have defended sweatshops. The fact is that sweatshops pay on average twice as much as other employers in the countries that use them."
Bringing up the horrible conditions in sweatshops isn't really just making an emotional appeal. I mean if your discussing politics, I certainly hope this kind of thing concerns you..
From what I seen, Ancaps have been very hypocritical and use double-standards in their analysis.
If they can find some information how some African country has improved, then its used as evidence that capitalism is working. When you point out to a country where private property exists, but yet its people are miserable, then its not because of capitalism but state intervention, and the like.
I wouldn't think so, but look above.
Well I certainly don't defend sweatshops, however I agree the workers are better off with employment at a sweatshop than they would have otherwise been. The question is, why are the workers in countries with sweatshops paid so little? Is it "big bad capitalism"? Or is it a government that violates private property rights and doesn't allow the labor market to function correctly?
Jeez, the free market runs the governments. First lesson of imperialism?
To seperate the state and the corporations and abolish the former is one thing. To then seperate corporations and smaller markets and abolish the former is another. To seperate private property from the nature of expanstion, power, and profits, is utopian.
Your definition of capitalism is so restricted and limited that you can simply ignore any counter examples as being "not capitalist"
Capitalism is defined by the ability to own your own property and engage in mutually beneficial exchange. That's all.
This essentially just excludes any failed example of capitalism.Yet, you would be happy to tell me how much capitalism has improved the life and the standard of livings and defend sweatshops.
Your so-called examples are not market failures. They are emotional pleas which expose your ignorance. The fact that farmers don't produce enough to feed the whole world (and destroy their profits) is not the problem of capitalism. It's the problem of socialist regimes which refuse to unclinch their fists, enslaving their people in poverty. Why should I bailout the Indian bureaucrats who are too stupid or too selfish to realize that their planning only causes harm?
But then whenever a criticism is raised, those same actions are turned around and looked from the other side, for being "state intervention, regulated markets", and etc...
Your meaningless criticisms are laughable. The FED continuously monetizes government debt via inflation in order to finance our utopian welfare state. And then, when prices rise, and real wages fall, capitalism is to blame! When the government over-taxes capital and supports labor cartels firms go over-seas. But again, capitalism is to blame! If only individual interests were in-line with special interests and government interests!!
The socialists arguments against capitalism are absurd. It's like objecting to gravity. A lunatic may object to the strength of gravity on Earth. He may say, "Imagine what life would be like if gravity wasn't as powerful as it is now! What fun would it be to jump 70 feet in the air!" He may add, "of course, we need some gravity, but our current condition is too restrictive." He may be right; it would be fun to jump 70 feet in the air. Nevertheless, that statement is absolutely ridiculous. When the socialist complains about capitalism, he's really just complaining about the existence of scarcity.
Get over it. Your utopian society never existed, and never will. Time to meet reality.
Should I criticize Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, or what about China? Would this make you more comfortable?
'Jeez, the free market runs the governments. First lesson of imperialism?'
Explain this statement.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Then how does Indonesia, Taiwan, India, Guatamala, China, etc all where private property exists (along with mass poverty), not constitute as capitalism?
The burden is on capitalism and it is its own problem if its unable to create this utopian free market free of government intervention.
You bundle up every non working example of private property and incorrectly call them socialism.
Heres a good START for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Mass poverty and explotiations are nothing more than just "emotional pleas"? How ridiculous. The horrible conditions of sweatshops, the massive exploitation and hard working conditions do not at all imply a failure of private property?
At least if you argued that your vision of capitalism is much different than this, but to critique me for caring about the conditions of humanity is god dam ridiculous.
Your meaningless criticism are laughable. It's like complaining about gravity. A lunatic may object to the strength of gravity on Earth. He may say, "Imagine what life would be like if gravity wasn't as powerful as it is now! How fun would it be to jump 70 feet in the air?" He may add, "of course, we need some gravity, but our current condition is too restrictive." He may be right; it would be fun to jump 70 feet in the air. Nevertheless, that statement is absolutely ridiculous.
?????????????????
Strawman. Wipe the tears off your eyes and stop button mashing your keyboard.
When you complain about capitalism, you're really just complaining about the existence of scarcity. Get over it. Your utopian society never existed, and never will. Time to meet reality.
Stop throwing around your useless statements without providing facts. We are not in a state of scarcity.
There is enough food to feed the world.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html
Currently 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, yet your only argument is that we need to produce 50x what we do now, so that we can have people not starve to death while people own yachtes in their yatches.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8
Edit: Yup there you go."
That video was only pointing out that the sweatshops offered employment that was better than the alternatives, which is 100% true. I don't think anyone denies that the conditions are bad relative to the average USA citizens working conditions. If merely acknowledging that sweatshops offer better employment than the alternatives is defending sweatshops then I guess I am guilty as well. However you must ask yourself, why are these people so poor in the first place? Why are their wages so low? Why is a sweatshop the most productive job they can find?
"From what I seen, Ancaps have been very hypocritical and use double-standards in their analysis.
If they can find some information how some African country has improved, then its used as evidence that capitalism is working. When you point out to a country where private property exists, but yet its people are miserable, then its not because of capitalism but state intervention, and the like."
Private property merely existing doesn't mean there is free market capitalism. Your lack of understanding about how free market capitalism really works could also be contributing to your perception that Ancaps use double-standards in their analysis. However some of them make capitalism out to be perfect when in fact it is not, nothing human is.
'Stop throwing around your useless statements without providing facts. We are not in a state of scarcity.'
Then I challenge you to rip up your paycheck and live in your post scarcity garden of eden.
Government intervention has always been on the behalf of large corporations. Either for overthrowing progressive governments that seek to nationalize private property that would hurt corporation (Iran in '53) , protecting private property rights abroad, supressing labor union movements, installing loyal dictators for corporate needs, reserving cheap source of labor, properiating resources, etc.
Although I understand ancaps are against corporatism. Though, no one has yet to explain to me how this free market capitalism, which is still run by the same market mechanics, can be any different.
Drace,
You're raising standard objections that have been answered numerous times throughout history. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with these answers before you make a fool of yourself on this thread. Read Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. I'd reccommend starting with Hazlit's "economics in one lesson."
The amount of food currently produced wouldn't exist without private property, and free exchange. Without the profit motive, private property, etc no farmer would have an incentive to produce as much as she currently produces.
I'm not denying that, but it is false to look at the corporations as saviors for "providing" jobs that pay better than the alternatives.
There is yet a much better alternative though. Why should the workers have to be paid such low wages at all? Its slave labor.
I know, but on one side they say that free market capitalism does not exist, but yet they will praise and provide facts on how country X has improved due to capitalism.
Drace, You're raising standard objections that have been answered numerous times throughout history. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with these answers before you make a fool of yourself on this thread. Read Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. I'd reccommend starting with Hazlit's "economics in one lesson."
Sure, you read Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin and I'll give Hayek a try...
'Government intervention has always been on the behalf of large corporations. Either for overthrowing progressive governments that seek to nationalize private property that would hurt corporation (Iran in '53) , protecting private property rights abroad, supressing labor union movements, installing loyal dictators for corporate needs, reserving cheap source of labor, properiating resources, etc'
Well the government plays both hands. It is in large corporations pockets and yet at times against them with things like subsidization for competitors and passing labor laws.
'Although I understand ancaps are against corporatism. Though, no one has yet to explain to me how this free market capitalism, which is still run by the same market mechanics, can be any different.'
But it is not run by the same mechanics. It is an absence of state. Left to their own devices, competition naturally weeds out corporations which do not appease the consumer base. Now its not going to be perfect. The market doesn't react instantly but people's impressions affect when/where/how trade happens. So if we a society based upon libertarian values which include but are not limited to cooperation, voluntary exchange, reason over violence and a respect for individuality/sovereignty then I think it would make for a beneficial environment.
'Sure, you read Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin and I'll give Hayek a try...'
Kind of an odd mix considering Marx and Lenin would be opposed to people like Kropotkin and Bakunin.
Drace: http://www.restoretherepublic.org/documents/how-an-economy-grows.pdf
Thanks for the response, I'm appreciating this sort of discussion a lot more. i"ll have to respond later though.
I put each for different reaons :)
Marx on capitalist economics, Lenin on imperialism, Kropotkin and Bakunin on leftist anarchism and anti-propertarian ideals.
"I'm not denying that, but it is false to look at the corporations as saviors for "providing" jobs that pay better than the alternatives.
There is yet a much better alternative though. Why should the workers have to be paid such low wages at all? Its slave labor."
I do not agree that it is slave labor. They are better off with these jobs than they were without, and they took the jobs voluntarily. I think it sucks that the governments of these countries have kept their people in such poverty that a sweatshop provides the best opportunity for them to provide for their families and children, and I find it appalling that in the year 2010 people could be in such conditions.
"Why should the workers have to be paid such low wages?"
What is a wage? A wage is the price of rent for labor. How does that rent price rise? Why is it low in the first place? If you get painfully bored (lol) or are just curious about how wages rise (or at least how we THINK they rise since you do not agree) check out this http://mises.org/books/whywagesrise.pdf .
"I know, but on one side they say that free market capitalism does not exist, but yet they will praise and provide facts on how country X has improved due to capitalism."
There are different degrees of economic freedom throughout the world. The greater the degree of freedom, the closer the economy is to being "free market capitalism". Even within the same economy, different sectors can be less regulated than other. Example: Tech vs Finance in the USA.
I also added the ability to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Either way, yes, the communist leaders of the world were forced to allow some form of capitalism in order to prevent complete systemic destruction. When tens of millions starve to death, you begin to rethink your ideology. The government is a parasite; it requires a host.
We don't support capitalism because we dream of some utopian society. We support capitalism because we understand that no such utopian society can ever exist. That is to say, we've abandoned meaningless fairy tales. History is clear: the freer the economy, the freer and the society, and the greater the prosperity.
Mass poverty and exploitations are nothing more than just "emotional pleas"? How ridiculous. The horrible conditions of sweatshops, the massive exploitation and hard working conditions do not at all imply a failure of private property?
Yes, they are nothing but meaningless and quite frankly, pathetic emotional pleas. (1) Your exploitation complaint has no theoretical backing. It was destroyed once Ohm-Bawerk and Menger showed that value is purely a subjective phenomenon. (2) You focus on the seen, and then compare it to some imaginary world you created in your head. Without those sweatshops the workers would die of starvation. Wealth doesn't fall from the sky; you cannot will it into existence. You start with early industrialization, and as you accumulate capital, wealth accumulates and you become prosperous.
Friedman said it well; "I share the softness of your heart, but not the softness of your head." (something like that)
We are not in a state of scarcity.
Hahaha. What more can be said? This level of stupidity is really appalling. Please, go back to your Venus project and fantasize about floating cities and cars that travel at light-speed.
Drace is a fan of polylogism & hates minorities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4M_Dez33RA
'Marx on capitalist economics, Lenin on imperialism'
Well I would argue that they didn't have a proper conceptual definition of what capitalism is. Marx lived in a time of mercantilsitic sentiments and try to pass them off as bourgeois capitalism. Lenin lived in an age of empire building and the 'large policy' and like Marx, tried to pass them off as bourgeois capitalism. Kropotkin and Bakunin think that private property creates social disturbances and violence yet Aristotle already answered these fears in his discourse with Plato centuries ago.
Read Böhm-Bawerk to refute Marx, and Mises to refute the rest. It's been done. We don't have to fight these battles again.
Drace, so you leave the last thread without answering our questions, come here and start your random bs again.
you want us to read someone who can't even explain how prices are formed, never considered time-prefences etc?
Shutup, I am not interested in any discussion with you. You seem to have no reason to respond other than to bash me.
FYI, Marx explains the transition of value to prices in vol 3 of Das Kapital. And no Marx was not able to look into the future. How would you know if you never read it anyway?
Drace is a fan of polylogism & hates minorities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4M_Dez33RA
I don't have time to response to everything but I saw this, and wtf?
This:
Esuric:Capitalist socities have never seen a famine. If the poor nations of the world allowed private property, kept their currencies stable, and let individuals persue their own interests, then the quantity of food would cease to be a problem.
Political Atheists Blog
Drace:Sure, you read Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, Bakunin and I'll give Hayek a try...
Funny that you say this, because many of the forum members on this site have read Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, and Bakunin. I'm rather familiar with Kropotkin and Bankunin. I know others are quite familiar with Marx and Lenin.
You're the one who is coming into the debate undereducated, not us. Give Hazlitt and Rothbard a fair shake and then come back to us to debate.
"wtf?"
- The general response to your "arguments"..
Drace, don't be holding out on me bro. Where is your coherent refutation of the Hoppe article (which destroys your flawed world view) ?
Drace, what's wrong with matrices of individuals making voluntary exchanges through the use of their own property?
To further elaborate, how would you explain the reason why, in detail, millions do die each year because of starvation, and how would a centralized means of food production cure this compared to a free-market solution that would lift the government restrictions and intervention on farming and private property that leads to mass starvation?