Does anyone have comments on this article? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/why-were-seeing-the-ugly-new-face-of-capitalism/article2337440/
They are not presenting any new arguments; it's the same old stuff. Just wondering what different people might say on the facts and arguments. Thanks...
1. Hard to reply without access to the WSJ article he quotes. I did see one intriguing line there, that "Corporate income-tax receipts typically fall during recessions,"
2. His argument seems to be:
a] companies are making record profits.
b] companies are firing people, or making them work longer hours, or paying them less. This is an evil, a "punch".
c] companies are paying lower taxes. This is also bad, a second "punch".
d] there is high unemployment, and thus companies can lower wages. This is an evil.
e] if lower taxes and lower wages create more (good paying) jobs, why aren't we seeing those jobs?
f] all this is an ugly face of capitalism.
OK.
a] Don't see his numbers, just an assertion.
b and d] This is not an evil or a punch. It is a law of economics known as the law of supply and demand.
In the proud history of the human race, many attempts have been made to pretend this law doesn't exist, always with disastrous results.
c] Why is paying less taxes bad, when nobody suffers but the govt workers who have parasitic jobs who should have all been fired long ago?
e] We need cast our eyes overseas to the Eurozone to find the answer. All the countires there suffer chronic high unemployment. When asked why they don't hire anyone, the employers replied, "Because the laws and the unions here make it impossible to fire the incompetents." In short, govt imposed regulations are making employers reluctant to hire anyone.
f] None of the above have anything to do with capitalism. Some are economic laws that apply whenever humans group together in any economic system, some are a result of govt imposistion, the opposite of capitalism.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Didn't read, but my imagination tells I know what's there. Thing is, most of the articles like that don't know what "capitalism" is in the first place. At least, they are not arguing against capitalism that is promoted by modern anarchists (ancaps) and libertarians. Basically, they are arguing against strawman.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
The article blabbers about taxes and corporate profits, but doesn't mention the effects of government regulation, labour regulation, or that the price of labour is a function of supply and demand (i.e. requires competition, not some cushy government-imposed standard).
The argument that the word capitalism is becoming more and more corrupted due to crony capitalism is becoming more and more persuasive.
Perhaps we ought to start using the term free market more often. What do you guys think?
Here's a interesting vid on the issue: