23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

[JimC]

Isn't it possible that free markets do some things well, deilver some things to society better than state-controlled economies, and yet also help to maintain an unjust social division of haves and have nots?

I am struggling to explain this, but I have a feeling that protagonists for a variety of systems always use spin to convince others about the benefits of their system, and gloss over the down side. One day, a mature human species will look at ways of organising societies somewhat more dispassionatrely, and find the least nasty compromise...

[HomerJay]

maybes over population meant that agriculture, though initially unsuccessful, was a necessity.

Might have been, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that division of labour is a prerequisite to sustaining the number of people that live on earth at the moment.

A nice to have rather than a prerequisite.

You honestly think 6.5 billion people would be capable of sustaining themselves without engaging in trade? Cause that's what you're saying here.

The size is purely relative to the availability and creation of resources, trade or the DoL just makes it eaasier, hence nice to have rather than 'prerequisite'.

[JOZeldenrust]

maybes over population meant that agriculture, though initially unsuccessful, was a necessity.

Might have been, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that division of labour is a prerequisite to sustaining the number of people that live on earth at the moment.

A nice to have rather than a prerequisite.

You honestly think 6.5 billion people would be capable of sustaining themselves without engaging in trade? Cause that's what you're saying here.

The size is purely relative to the availability and creation of resources, trade or the DoL just makes it eaasier, hence nice to have rather than 'prerequisite'.

Either:

1: you define "the availability of resources" as the amount of resources that people are able to process, in which case your statement is correct, but the availability of resources increases because of division of labour, so division of labour enables sustaining the current population,

or

2: the "availability of resources" is a function of the material composition of the world, in which case you statement is wrong, because then the size of the popuation the world can support would be a function of those resources and the efficiency with which we can process them, i.e. division of labour.

In both cases, division of labour is a prerequisite for supporting a population of its current size.

Unprocessed resources don't do anyone any good. Even berries need to be picked before they can be eaten. Division of labour increases the amount of resources the collective species can process per capita. Without division of labour, 6,5 billion people could not survive on earth. It really is impossible.

[.Morticia.]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

[PsychoSerenity]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

[Atheist-Lite]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That won't happen anytime soon will it?

[Coito ergo sum]

Figures that comes from "zcommunications."

Yea, wouldn't want to reference a web site whose contributors are almost all professors, lecturers and authors. No, wouldn't want that.

You wouldn't know it by the moronic nature of the material in the OP.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, of course, that's not really true because "they" are trying to sell us a lie about "capitalism" which in fact, according to zcommunications, doesn't even really exist.

I'd like to take a capitalist from America circa 1895 and time travel him to present day. He'd be shocked by the different economic rules. And would probably blurt out "Socialism!"

He might not even be familiar with the term.

[.Morticia.]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

That won't happen anytime soon will it?

I sincerely and sadly doubt it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

+200

[sandinista]

Figures that comes from "zcommunications."

Yea, wouldn't want to reference a web site whose contributors are almost all professors, lecturers and authors. No, wouldn't want that.

You wouldn't know it by the moronic nature of the material in the OP.

A shining validation of the credibility of Znet if you think it's moronic.

[Seth]

Looks like an interesting book.

23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism

Thing 1: There is no such thing as a free market



What they tell you



Markets need to be free. When the government interferes to dictate what market participants can or cannot do, resources cannot flow to their most efficient use. If people cannot do the things that they find most profitable, they lose the incentive to invest and innovate. Thus, if the government puts a cap on house rents, landlords lose the incentive to maintain their properties or build new ones. Or, if the government restricts the kinds of financial products that can be sold, two contracting parties that may both have benefited from innovative transactions that fulfill their idiosyncratic needs cannot reap the potential gains of free contract. People must be left "free to choose," as the title of free-market visionary Milton Friedman’s famous book goes.



What they don’t tell you



The free market doesn’t exist. Every market has some rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. A market looks free only because we so unconditionally accept its underlying restrictions that we fail to see them. How "free" a market is cannot be objectively defined. It is a political definition. The usual claim by free-market economists that they are trying to defend the market from politically motivated interference by the government is false. Government is always involved and those free-marketeers are as politically motivated as anyone. Overcoming the myth that there is such a thing as an objectively defined "free market" is the first step towards understanding capitalism.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/9781608191666?&PID=32513

http://www.zcommunications.org/23-thing ... joon-chang

Figures that comes from "zcommunications." It's not like it's a hidden secret that all economies have rules and boundaries that restrict freedom of choice. Hardly anyone advocates a completely unregulated economy (some left wing anarchists and right wing libertarians do, but not many). Capitalism doesn't mean that the economy is completely unregulated in every respect, and has never meant that.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for a private profit; decisions regarding supply, demand, price, distribution, and investments are made by private actors in the free market; profit is sent to owners who invest in businesses, and wages are paid to workers employed by businesses and companies. Having a regulation like, "It shall be a felony to sell food to people that is not fit for human consumption" or something akin to it doesn't mean the system isn't capitalism anymore. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, is a matter of politics and policy, and many states have what are termed mixed economies (where there is a mixture of private and government control). Most economies are mixed economies.

But, of course "They" are lying to us, and "They" aren't telling us what capitalism "really" is.

Regarding the first paragraph, about rents - of course if the government places a cap on rents that's an incentive for people not to invest in home rental businesses or to rent houses. If the cap on the rent means that the total rents you receive is less than the amount of money you need to pay out to maintain the house, then you lose money on the deal. If you lose money on the deal, why would you do it? Whether a cap will simply hold down skyrocketing rental prices or kill an industry depends, of course, on the overall characteristics of the rental market. If the rental cap is set high enough that the landlord can still make money, then they'll stay in business. If it's set too low, they won't be able to stay in business because they'll run out of money.

But, naturally, it ought to be completely obvious that if I can sell product X for $100 and the government makes me sell it for $80, and my cost of goods sold is $60, I have reduced incentive to market product X because my profit is down from $40 a unit to $20 a unit. If there was another product - Y - that I could just as easily sell and make a $40 profit margin over cost of goods sold, then if all else is equal I will move out of the X market and into the Y market. But, of course, that's not really true because "they" are trying to sell us a lie about "capitalism" which in fact, according to zcommunications, doesn't even really exist.

More later, (gotta go watch Glen Beck..) but the most basic flaw in this propaganda is the notion that "free market" means "unregulated market." It doesn't. "Free market" means a market in which the government central planners do NOT engage in regulation intended to select economic winners and losers. No Libertarian or Free Market economist has ever seriously argued that "free market" means a market free of all regulations. The regulations appropriate in a free market system are ONLY those police-power regulation of government intended to protect FAIR TRADE and HONEST DEALING. That's it.

Putting a regulation in place to prevent inside trading is a legitimate police-power regulation, whereas dictating prices for wheat or corn to advantage or disadvantage one producer over another is REDISTRIBUTIONIST REGULATION intended to "centrally plan" the economy to achieve political and social "justice" and "fairness" objectives.

And that distinction alone, the debunking of the collectivist/socialist theory of central planning as a component of interference with the markets, absolutely and categorically destroys everything that follows in that leftist screed.

Government's only legitimate role in the markets is as a policeman to reduce and prosecute instances of force and fraud that violate free market principles. Nothing more. It's really pretty simple.

[Seth]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

We could do so if the leftists, Marxists, Communists, collectivists and other various forms of dependent-class redistributionists would all drop dead of their own accord.

Since they won't, and since they are largely responsible for fomenting violence in the world, and have been for a long, long time, it's necessary to keep armies and spend money on defense in order to put down radical socialist revolutionary dictators and wannabees. Sadly, lethal force seems to be about the only way to prevent them from completely destroying the planet's economy.

In the end, it's their fault though. They could just give up their pretensions of totalitarianism and start respecting the rights of other individuals, and they could stop depending on others to slave for their benefit and take responsibility for their own actions. But they won't.

So, we have to fight, because surrender to collectivism is not a civilized or rational option.

[PsychoSerenity]

You know what would be really helpful?

If governments all over the world stopped spending a huge proportion of the budget on guns and war.

We could do so if the leftists, Marxists, Communists, collectivists and other various forms of dependent-class redistributionists would all drop dead of their own accord.

Since they won't, and since they are largely responsible for fomenting violence in the world, and have been for a long, long time, it's necessary to keep armies and spend money on defense in order to put down radical socialist revolutionary dictators and wannabees. Sadly, lethal force seems to be about the only way to prevent them from completely destroying the planet's economy.

In the end, it's their fault though. They could just give up their pretensions of totalitarianism and start respecting the rights of other individuals, and they could stop depending on others to slave for their benefit and take responsibility for their own actions. But they won't.

So, we have to fight, because surrender to collectivism is not a civilized or rational option.

[sandinista]

It is quite funny