Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
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.
< Message edited by Zonie63 -- 7/29/2014 8:36:22 AM >
|
Another interesting article... - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread