Another interesting article... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DesideriScuri -> Another interesting article... (7/24/2014 7:48:39 AM)

http://mises.org/daily/6807/Thomas-Piketty-and-Mises-The-AntiCapitalistic-Mentality
    quote:

    Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’

    Mises’s treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

    In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.

  • 1. "The first factor is simple ignorance."
  • 2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."
  • 3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "

    quote:

    But there is something else to worry about — something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’s greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”



mnottertail -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/24/2014 7:52:54 AM)

So, his theory, his apology, contains no fact. Mises was a fuckin loser, and nobody (and that includes Germany) follows his stupid shit. We did Friedman for a while, and that got us fucked. He was the guy that said the premises don't have to be right (much like Mises) but if the end result looks like you want, that is proof of the deal.


Yeah, we should think grandiose unanchored in truth and fact shit about the economy, and start implementing it, to see if the end result is what we want.



DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/24/2014 7:55:14 AM)

Piketty really freaked out the right. I'm still slogging through the book. So far he seems to be on very solid ground. Far better than anything supported by a worshipper of Mises.



joether -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/24/2014 9:58:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://mises.org/daily/6807/Thomas-Piketty-and-Mises-The-AntiCapitalistic-Mentality
    quote:

    Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’

    Mises’s treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

    In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.

  • 1. "The first factor is simple ignorance."
  • 2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."
  • 3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "

    quote:

    But there is something else to worry about — something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’s greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”



So your attacking Thomas Piketty and his book with useless bullshit and no understanding of the man's thesis on the topics presented in the book. In other words, DS, your attacking from a place of TOTAL IGNORANCE as usual.

The book is not a light or short read. So the likelihood that it will be 'shorten' by the conservative masters is doubtful. Most likely conservative media will give you and other conservative/libertarians 'talking points' to argue those that ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE FUCKING BOOK! And in the end, like with the Affordable Care Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and many other...in-depth....understandings (Theory of Evolution, Theory of Climate Change, Theory of Abiogenesis, Stem Cell Research, etc.), you will babble out what the conservative misinformation machine wants/desires you to babble out. Like a robot, a mindless puppet, or even a drone. One whom will tear at anything that is non-conservative/libertarian without a second thought. And always over looking those of the conservative/libertarian philosophy.

Mises's is defending something like a religious belief, NOT, from a place of objective understanding. Again, the conservative/libertarian thought process of arguing from a belief rather than being objective. Like the many threads about Climate Change, this one is using talking points from a conservative media organization, so that people like you, might feel smart. Unfortunately, liberals tend to...READ...many things and form their own....FREE...ideas and ideals on a subject matter (that would be in keeping with the root definition of the word 'Liberal').

Capitalism did not give this nation all the fantastic things Mises states. Its the American people that gave onto themselves these things. Through science, knowledge, education, work, loyalty to the country regardless of WHOM was in the White House....help to make the nation what it become and is. It took many different forms of government (or do you really think there is only one government philosophy running?) and 'schools of economic thought' to create the nation to what it has become. I'll take it as an educated guess that your 'talking points' do not take any of that into account either....





DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/24/2014 2:03:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
http://mises.org/daily/6807/Thomas-Piketty-and-Mises-The-AntiCapitalistic-Mentality
    quote:

    Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’
    Mises’s treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
    In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.

  • 1. "The first factor is simple ignorance."
  • 2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."
  • 3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "
    quote:

    But there is something else to worry about — something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’s greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”

So your attacking Thomas Piketty and his book with useless bullshit and no understanding of the man's thesis on the topics presented in the book. In other words, DS, your attacking from a place of TOTAL IGNORANCE as usual.
The book is not a light or short read. So the likelihood that it will be 'shorten' by the conservative masters is doubtful. Most likely conservative media will give you and other conservative/libertarians 'talking points' to argue those that ACTUALLY TOOK THE TIME TO READ THE FUCKING BOOK! And in the end, like with the Affordable Care Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and many other...in-depth....understandings (Theory of Evolution, Theory of Climate Change, Theory of Abiogenesis, Stem Cell Research, etc.), you will babble out what the conservative misinformation machine wants/desires you to babble out. Like a robot, a mindless puppet, or even a drone. One whom will tear at anything that is non-conservative/libertarian without a second thought. And always over looking those of the conservative/libertarian philosophy.
Mises's is defending something like a religious belief, NOT, from a place of objective understanding. Again, the conservative/libertarian thought process of arguing from a belief rather than being objective. Like the many threads about Climate Change, this one is using talking points from a conservative media organization, so that people like you, might feel smart. Unfortunately, liberals tend to...READ...many things and form their own....FREE...ideas and ideals on a subject matter (that would be in keeping with the root definition of the word 'Liberal').
Capitalism did not give this nation all the fantastic things Mises states. Its the American people that gave onto themselves these things. Through science, knowledge, education, work, loyalty to the country regardless of WHOM was in the White House....help to make the nation what it become and is. It took many different forms of government (or do you really think there is only one government philosophy running?) and 'schools of economic thought' to create the nation to what it has become. I'll take it as an educated guess that your 'talking points' do not take any of that into account either....


I see you think I am attacking Piketty, while it is the author of the article that is showing the differences between Piketty's book and Mises book. While they were written in much different times, they sure do seem to contradict each other.

I'll just chalk this one up to you not agreeing that the article was interesting.



mnottertail -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/24/2014 2:28:52 PM)

It isn't interesting because Piketty is only one of an overwhelming lot that have put the lie to Mises and his foolishness long long ago.


NOne are saying capitalism is bad altogether, by the way, as this rather paranoid and schizophrenic Mises would have it, but unfettered it leads to exactly what Piketty describes (among many others).




joether -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/25/2014 3:07:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
It isn't interesting because Piketty is only one of an overwhelming lot that have put the lie to Mises and his foolishness long long ago.

NOne are saying capitalism is bad altogether, by the way, as this rather paranoid and schizophrenic Mises would have it, but unfettered it leads to exactly what Piketty describes (among many others).


Capitalism by itself has no mechanism to control or handle the one thing that undermines it: Greed. Where as a Regulated Capitalism can work well, so long as it controls and keeps greed in check. That has been the form of economic tool used by the United States since the 1930s. And its done a very good job for the nation. The primary problem with Regulated Capitalism is weighing 'greed' against 'over doing it'; and that requires much in the way of research, study, observation, and in some cases...speculation.

Mr. Piketty's book seems to explain a number of subjects, one of them being how an undistributed amount of wealth to a tiny minority of individuals can upset national and international economies over a long term. That wealth that is not even, will create more problems than it helps. We are currently observing this in the political fights on the nation level between the '1%ers' and 'The Middle Class' (the Poor are sort of lumped in with the Middle Class here).



MrRodgers -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/25/2014 5:30:26 PM)

Any objective assessment of any economic system is how it rewards ALL of society. For a few years after the civil war if one wants to call it 'capitalism' did serve by far...most of society. Many will not call our post civil war economy capitalism, because it was still far too agrarian...i.e., not industrial.

Fast forward to the coming of age of our true industrial economy around the 1890's and one must begin to include technology which was then on a large scale, funded by debt and stocks or...paper turned into money exacerbated by the creation of the fed which then created paper-money speculative bubbles.

Since then the idea that our economy has served all of society is ridiculous on its face with a short post WWII building period the demand for which was pent up during the war, being the only exception and even then, only by govt. beginning to subsidize easy debt. with the creation of the VA FHA loans and the economic presumption of multi-billion $ govt. mortgage warehouses (Fannie & Freddie) ...guaranteeing...just more speculation in more debt on housing.

So since that post WWII period and after the recession of 1959...all we've been able yo do as a society is leverage our earnings more having accrue now some $70 or $80 trillion in consumer and govt. debt. In short...we haven't 'paid' for much of anything.

All one can argue now is that to the extent 70-80% of society has anything and in fact it does but not greater wealth but [it] has...greater debt and thus capitalism now IS defined as...debt.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/25/2014 7:05:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Any objective assessment of any economic system is how it rewards ALL of society. For a few years after the civil war if one wants to call it 'capitalism' did serve by far...most of society. Many will not call our post civil war economy capitalism, because it was still far too agrarian...i.e., not industrial.
Fast forward to the coming of age of our true industrial economy around the 1890's and one must begin to include technology which was then on a large scale, funded by debt and stocks or...paper turned into money exacerbated by the creation of the fed which then created paper-money speculative bubbles.
Since then the idea that our economy has served all of society is ridiculous on its face with a short post WWII building period the demand for which was pent up during the war, being the only exception and even then, only by govt. beginning to subsidize easy debt. with the creation of the VA FHA loans and the economic presumption of multi-billion $ govt. mortgage warehouses (Fannie & Freddie) ...guaranteeing...just more speculation in more debt on housing.
So since that post WWII period and after the recession of 1959...all we've been able yo do as a society is leverage our earnings more having accrue now some $70 or $80 trillion in consumer and govt. debt. In short...we haven't 'paid' for much of anything.
All one can argue now is that to the extent 70-80% of society has anything and in fact it does but not greater wealth but [it] has...greater debt and thus capitalism now IS defined as...debt.


Right. And, what Capitalism has gotten us is nothing more than any third world country. It's exactly the same. Go look out your window. Oh, wait. We have windows, and they don't. I wonder how you're reading this, as not all of those countries and their citizens even have access to a computer, let alone the internet.

You do realize, don't you, that the majority of stuff we have came from corporations and businesses. Why did they do this? For want of money, probably, no? And, how did they do this? Capital accumulation, no?





DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/25/2014 7:44:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Any objective assessment of any economic system is how it rewards ALL of society. For a few years after the civil war if one wants to call it 'capitalism' did serve by far...most of society. Many will not call our post civil war economy capitalism, because it was still far too agrarian...i.e., not industrial.
Fast forward to the coming of age of our true industrial economy around the 1890's and one must begin to include technology which was then on a large scale, funded by debt and stocks or...paper turned into money exacerbated by the creation of the fed which then created paper-money speculative bubbles.
Since then the idea that our economy has served all of society is ridiculous on its face with a short post WWII building period the demand for which was pent up during the war, being the only exception and even then, only by govt. beginning to subsidize easy debt. with the creation of the VA FHA loans and the economic presumption of multi-billion $ govt. mortgage warehouses (Fannie & Freddie) ...guaranteeing...just more speculation in more debt on housing.
So since that post WWII period and after the recession of 1959...all we've been able yo do as a society is leverage our earnings more having accrue now some $70 or $80 trillion in consumer and govt. debt. In short...we haven't 'paid' for much of anything.
All one can argue now is that to the extent 70-80% of society has anything and in fact it does but not greater wealth but [it] has...greater debt and thus capitalism now IS defined as...debt.


Right. And, what Capitalism has gotten us is nothing more than any third world country. It's exactly the same. Go look out your window. Oh, wait. We have windows, and they don't. I wonder how you're reading this, as not all of those countries and their citizens even have access to a computer, let alone the internet.

You do realize, don't you, that the majority of stuff we have came from corporations and businesses. Why did they do this? For want of money, probably, no? And, how did they do this? Capital accumulation, no?

electrification was a utility, i.e. government supported monopoly (socialism).
computers development was driven by WW2 and the space program (government spending not private enterprise)
internet was created by DARPA (part of the US government and given away to the world, socialism)
So all the things except windows you attribute to capitalism aren't.



MrRodgers -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/26/2014 2:38:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Any objective assessment of any economic system is how it rewards ALL of society. For a few years after the civil war if one wants to call it 'capitalism' did serve by far...most of society. Many will not call our post civil war economy capitalism, because it was still far too agrarian...i.e., not industrial.
Fast forward to the coming of age of our true industrial economy around the 1890's and one must begin to include technology which was then on a large scale, funded by debt and stocks or...paper turned into money exacerbated by the creation of the fed which then created paper-money speculative bubbles.
Since then the idea that our economy has served all of society is ridiculous on its face with a short post WWII building period the demand for which was pent up during the war, being the only exception and even then, only by govt. beginning to subsidize easy debt. with the creation of the VA FHA loans and the economic presumption of multi-billion $ govt. mortgage warehouses (Fannie & Freddie) ...guaranteeing...just more speculation in more debt on housing.
So since that post WWII period and after the recession of 1959...all we've been able yo do as a society is leverage our earnings more having accrue now some $70 or $80 trillion in consumer and govt. debt. In short...we haven't 'paid' for much of anything.
All one can argue now is that to the extent 70-80% of society has anything and in fact it does but not greater wealth but [it] has...greater debt and thus capitalism now IS defined as...debt.


Right. And, what Capitalism has gotten us is nothing more than any third world country. It's exactly the same. Go look out your window. Oh, wait. We have windows, and they don't. I wonder how you're reading this, as not all of those countries and their citizens even have access to a computer, let alone the internet.

You do realize, don't you, that the majority of stuff we have came from corporations and businesses. Why did they do this? For want of money, probably, no? And, how did they do this? Capital accumulation, no?


Few advancements have actually been wholly originated by the corporation and society as a whole has not been served much at all by the corporation but for maybe 10-15 years post WWII period in the last 160 years. Our current capitalist system allows private profit without any private liability via the corp. that enjoys now a codified fiduciary responsibility only to its investors with none to society at all. Society exists to serve the corporation, not the other way around.

The only reason it is not now as bad as it was in the 30's, is because of the taxpayer being the lender of last resort and thus, many more trillion$ in debt. The corporation and its continued practice of contemporary monetary capitalism, will be the death knell of America.



DesideriScuri -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/26/2014 8:16:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
electrification was a utility, i.e. government supported monopoly (socialism).
computers development was driven by WW2 and the space program (government spending not private enterprise)
internet was created by DARPA (part of the US government and given away to the world, socialism)
So all the things except windows you attribute to capitalism aren't.


Yeah, the government funded all those inventors way back when, didn't they? I didn't realize Bill Gates had anything to do with WW2 of the space program. The initial creation of the internet may be the backbone of today's internet, but it wasn't DARPA that drove it to what is today.



mnottertail -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/26/2014 8:33:08 AM)

Bill Gates didnt, and he didnt invent computers. He didnt invent operating systems, he bought it.



DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/26/2014 9:26:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
electrification was a utility, i.e. government supported monopoly (socialism).
computers development was driven by WW2 and the space program (government spending not private enterprise)
internet was created by DARPA (part of the US government and given away to the world, socialism)
So all the things except windows you attribute to capitalism aren't.


Yeah, the government funded all those inventors way back when, didn't they? I didn't realize Bill Gates had anything to do with WW2 of the space program. The initial creation of the internet may be the backbone of today's internet, but it wasn't DARPA that drove it to what is today.


Maybe you need to study history. If you check the US government controlled the root address file for the entire net until just a couple of years ago. And Gates literally couldn't have done anything without the CPU which was developed because of WW2 and the space program and US government spending.



Sanity -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/26/2014 10:36:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Maybe you need to study history. If you check the US government controlled the root address file for the entire net until just a couple of years ago. And Gates literally couldn't have done anything without the CPU which was developed because of WW2 and the space program and US government spending.


Most modern technology, the really good stuff, was recovered at Roswell

(Just kidding)



MrRodgers -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/28/2014 8:50:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
electrification was a utility, i.e. government supported monopoly (socialism).
computers development was driven by WW2 and the space program (government spending not private enterprise)
internet was created by DARPA (part of the US government and given away to the world, socialism)
So all the things except windows you attribute to capitalism aren't.


Yeah, the government funded all those inventors way back when, didn't they? I didn't realize Bill Gates had anything to do with WW2 of the space program. The initial creation of the internet may be the backbone of today's internet, but it wasn't DARPA that drove it to what is today.


Maybe you need to study history. If you check the US government controlled the root address file for the entire net until just a couple of years ago. And Gates literally couldn't have done anything without the CPU which was developed because of WW2 and the space program and US government spending.

Gates didn't do anything anyway. IBM gave him his monopoly. It was they who established windows as the OS of the PC and the Intel Windows platform.

I am not alone and many business experts wonder what would have happened if IBM hadn't licensed windows and they had waited and came out with their own OS for the PC.

It wasn't until much later they did come out with OS OS2 and WARP by which time it was far too late to even make a dent as anybody knowledgeable in computer OS's knows.

Paramount is the ignorance of the federal courts, giving Gates the interactive 'desktop' and allowing the Windows monopoly as compared to 11 years the feds going after IBM and then to just put it to an end in agreement...forcing IBM to sell Colbalt and Fortran.

Does anyone really have any idea how many jobs and US IT leadership that cost this country ? Countless billion$ and countless 1000's.



DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/28/2014 10:00:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
electrification was a utility, i.e. government supported monopoly (socialism).
computers development was driven by WW2 and the space program (government spending not private enterprise)
internet was created by DARPA (part of the US government and given away to the world, socialism)
So all the things except windows you attribute to capitalism aren't.


Yeah, the government funded all those inventors way back when, didn't they? I didn't realize Bill Gates had anything to do with WW2 of the space program. The initial creation of the internet may be the backbone of today's internet, but it wasn't DARPA that drove it to what is today.


Maybe you need to study history. If you check the US government controlled the root address file for the entire net until just a couple of years ago. And Gates literally couldn't have done anything without the CPU which was developed because of WW2 and the space program and US government spending.

Gates didn't do anything anyway. IBM gave him his monopoly. It was they who established windows as the OS of the PC and the Intel Windows platform.

I am not alone and many business experts wonder what would have happened if IBM hadn't licensed windows and they had waited and came out with their own OS for the PC.

It wasn't until much later they did come out with OS OS2 and WARP by which time it was far too late to even make a dent as anybody knowledgeable in computer OS's knows.

Paramount is the ignorance of the federal courts, giving Gates the interactive 'desktop' and allowing the Windows monopoly as compared to 11 years the feds going after IBM and then to just put it to an end in agreement...forcing IBM to sell Colbalt and Fortran.

Does anyone really have any idea how many jobs and US IT leadership that cost this country ? Countless billion$ and countless 1000's.

Gates is no angel but Microsoft was a very early pioneer. For instance I learned to program on an Apple II I kit bashed and it came with Applesoft BASIC which was actually just Microsoft's BASIC interpreter for the Apple II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applesoft_BASIC



Zonie63 -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/29/2014 8:34:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

http://mises.org/daily/6807/Thomas-Piketty-and-Mises-The-AntiCapitalistic-Mentality
    quote:

    Thomas Piketty and Mises’s ‘The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality’

    Mises’s treatise on why capitalism sits in the dock, falsely accused of various crimes against humanity, is a classic: bravely saying what still needs to be said. It offers a robust rebuttal to the jaundiced view of capitalism found (most recently and conspicuously) in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century.


"Bravely saying what still needs to be said"? Isn't that spreading it on a bit thick?

The current view of capitalism is not unlike many people's view regarding politics. Yes, it might seem "jaundiced" at times, but that's to be expected when the prevailing political/economic system fails to meet the needs of the people or the nation as a whole.

I don't even believe that the view of capitalism is all that "jaundiced" though. Some people might be inclined to look at economic and political systems from a more objective and realistic standpoint, noting both the good and the bad. There are others who tend to be more ideological about their chosen belief system, turning more into religious fanatics and only looking at the good of their system, never the bad. They won't acknowledge anything negative about their "holy" beliefs, and anyone who does even remotely say anything negative can be said to have a "jaundiced" view (which would likely still be more accurate than a rose-colored view).

Capitalists simply can not handle even the slightest criticisms without becoming unglued and terribly emotional, invariably resorting to red-baiting, "love-it-or-leave-it," or "those-who-aren't-with-us-are-against-us" type of thinking. This was especially true during the Reagan-Bush years. If the tide of public opinion is starting to turn against them now, then a large part of it has to do with their arrogant and abusive manners in previous decades - and also due to the fact that their economic programs have failed to produce the results they said it would.

We went along with the policies and ideas that folks like Reagan and Bush said would be great for our country. They promised that America would be better off if we went along with "voodoo economics." Since America is quite clearly not better off today, then that means that capitalists have some serious 'splaining to do.

One thing I've noticed about capitalists: They take credit and reward for work done by others, yet blame everyone else for their own mistakes.

quote:


In The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, Mises asks: Why do so many people “loathe” capitalism? He gives a threefold answer.
1. "The first factor is simple ignorance."


Ignorance of what? Unlike those who are cocooned in academia, most of the rest of the public is aware of what system they're living under and can clearly see the results of that system, both the positive and the negative. Those who are doing well will embrace the system and support it, while those who are not will not. But I think it's safe to say that people are not ignorant of their own status. They know whether things are going well or not.

quote:


2. "The second factor is envy, the green-eyed monster, which causes many people to think they have gotten the short end of the stick."


This is possible as a peripheral factor, although this should be expected as a natural reaction to any form of inequality or disparity in wealth. One problem here is that this statement carries the implication that there must necessarily be a "short end of the stick" in a capitalist society. It demonstrates ideological thinking and an inability to think outside the box.

quote:


3. "And finally, the third factor is the unceasing vilification of capitalism by those who seek to constrain or destroy it. "


This is a circular point, as much as saying "people hate capitalism because they hate it." Nothing to address here.

quote:

But there is something else to worry about — something that caused Mises to lose sleep. That is the thought that the natural tendency under capitalism “towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living” will be stymied by a growing “absence of capitalism” due to “the effects of policies sabotaging the operation of capitalism.” Among those perverse policies, Mises pointed to credit expansion, gunning the money supply, and raising minimum wage rates. Still more, he railed against progressive policies that diminish individual choice and leave more and more economic decision-making in the hands the state. Mises’s greatest fear was that people would “renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government.”


If capitalists are losing sleep and worried that people would "renounce freedom and voluntarily surrender to the suzerainty of omnipotent government," why can't capitalists try to offer a better choice and show some willingness to negotiate and compromise? That's where they lose credibility, since a little flexibility on their part would work wonders right about now. But time and time again throughout history, we've seen political systems overthrown and countries turned upside down, mainly as a result of those in power being too stubborn, arrogant, narcissistic, and egotistical to give even just a little bit. When facing such a brick wall of ideological intransigence, what can people do? What choices do they have?

What would capitalists be willing to give up in order to avoid "the suzerainty of omnipotent government"? If capitalists simply raised wages on their own - before they're asked to, before workers threaten to go on strike, before the government forces them to raise wages - then they could avoid a lot of the "unpleasantries" that come with government interference. But no, they stubbornly stick to their guns until the issue is forced and THAT'S what brings about all this loathing of capitalism.

I'm not saying that capitalism is ALL bad, but it's not all good either. As long as capitalists are willing to acknowledge this and willing to negotiate on a fair and objective level, then perhaps a balanced compromise can be achieved which would help us all sleep better at night. What are they willing to offer? Maybe if capitalists actually tried to look at this issue as practical business people rather than as rigid ideologues, they might be able to come up with better ideas.

Another aspect that needs to be examined is not just economic but the overall condition and position of the country as a whole. The role of the government in the economy became more predominant largely because it was necessary for our national security, such as active intervention in the free market during WW2. The government determined that the nation's survival was at stake, so they had to do what was practical - even if it mildly broke some of the tenets of capitalist orthodoxy.

Back then, they were willing to be flexible for the good of the country, but I don't see very much of this flexibility among capitalists of today.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/29/2014 9:02:27 AM)

Nicely laid out, zonie...without rancor.

In that same vein...you laid out some things capitalists could "give" on such as raising their employees' wages without being forced by the government to do so. I concede that this may be a valid point.

But...compromise requires give on both sides, generally of something you don't necessarily want to give but that is what makes the "give" valid and sincere.

So...name one thing that those on the other side of the table from the capitalists would be willing to give from their side? And it can't be something that comes from the capitalists in the first place. What government nicety or personal nicety would be given to the capitalists?



DomKen -> RE: Another interesting article... (7/29/2014 2:12:17 PM)

I still haven't finished Piketty's book but I'm about half way through and so far he has documented his case thoroughly. I can see why the hyper capitalists are freaking out.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02