The great genius of capitalism

All I’ve got to add is the government is a tool, no more no less, as are corporations. I do not grasp the distinct ion many attempt to make of our fellow citizens. All of our flaws are exhibited when utilizing either tool.

It’s as if some do not believe in the principles of one tool and I find that a little frightening.

 

According to Dr. Thomas Sowell, people attribute too much to capitalism. Capitalism is not all that people think it is.
Capitalism is nothing more or less than an economic system controlled by price moves. Communist China uses a capitalist economic system. The difference is that, in china, the communist government moves the prices. In a free-market system, individuals act according to their own self-interests to the benefit of others. In free-market capitalism, prices are moved by countless individuals on both the supply and demand sides of the trades.

When people defend 'capitalism', they are defending free-market capitalism. When people criticize 'capitalism', they criticize some other form of capitalism like crony-capitalism, or fascistic-capitalism where there's a veneer of private ownership but the government calls the shots - like in communist China. It is never free-market capitalism that gets criticized.

 

The government is just a tool, like corporations?????? Surely you jest! Name one country or state ever that was "just a tool" presumably in the hands of the people.

 

Yep, and the roads by which they moved were often little more than dirt trails or cattle tracks. There were rarely paved roads connecting towns because much such transportation was horse drawn. In fact as late as the thirty's much of the army's artillery transport was horse drawn.

 

Those "investors" were the government which provided a 7 million dollar loan

 

Which was repaid.

 

That's not the point. The government put that money up and without it...that canal doesn't get built

 

Yep and it closed a couple of decades later because railroads made it obsolete. Governments tend to like grandiose projects often of dubious. High speed rail is another if these boondoggles.

 

Lack of understanding of agriculture & culture clashes never stopped Wall Street from successfully plundering the resources & labor of 3rd World Nations worldwide. (Did you again forget the words of Smedley Butler?) From sugarcane to tobacco to coffee to cocao to poppies (opium) to cotton to spices to palm oil to tea...etc...etc...one can be sure big business directors never had a need to understand either botany or the culture. If a resource was coveted, money + a willing puppet leadership was all they needed. It's all still going on today.

Ford simply didn't have the support & backing of the Brazilian government. Normally, when Wall Street plans to set up shop in a 3rd World nation to plunder its resources, they will buy off (or threaten militarily, if necessary) its leader who will then, by various means, ensure a ready supply of slave/low-wage labor necessary for the business to succeed. (Read John Perkins book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, for details on how this works).

However, Ford wanted to do things on his own, using his own money to establish a utopian, self-sustaining industrial community. His goal was both business & socially motivated. But he lacked the support of the Brazilian government who naturally (and rightfully) mistrusted the presence of American business, but still sold him 2.5 million acres to use as he pleased, for a 7% cut of any profits.

As Greg Grandin notes in his definitive history of Fordlandia, “Ford had the right to run Fordlandia as a separate state.”

So Ford was truly on his own, with only money, but no government backing (either from the U.S. nor from Brazil), as leverage...and hence, why he failed. It is proof that money in the absence of a unifying social imperative (often engendered by the nation's leadership) is not enough. Foreign laborers must either feel compelled, or else forced, to work. The people in Brazil had no use for Ford, nor interest in his vision...and they certainly didn't want to become vassals to a business lord, laboring away to produce rubber. Nor was its government compelled to exert any pressure on its people to submit to Ford's vision.

So this is the MO of big business. They portray themselves as strong, independent, and the spearheads of social & scientific progress...but in reality they are parasites that feed & grow on the nation's labor force through a symbiotic relationship with big government. In effect, the ruling class has evolved to learn to expand big business's role (along with the IMF & World Bank) in imposing domestic & international control...with the military as backup when wars become necessary.

 

150 years ago Ford was 7 years old. You're really going back far (not to mention you missed the entire point of my post). Did you forget the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc? How about the three branches of government? Are you saying these had no bearing on domestic policy & economics? And who financed & coordinated the numerous wars beginning with the Revolution up to WW1? It was certainly not just a ragtag group of mercenaries funded by big business capitalists.

Hell, the first colonies would've died out if not for the help & aid they received from the native populations. Why? Because there was, at that very early time, no established governmental support structure, management, and infrastructure. (So much for the power of capitalism!) Yet, why would the first settlers seek out gold over learning to grow food? Simple. Because there was a monetary system already in place from whence they originated that valued gold. The gold prospectors drooled over the chance to replicate that wealth in the New World...all at the expense of the native population. The discovery of gold, the slaughter & removal of Indians, plus the introduction of slavery opened up a new world where the new King was big business. From then on, government domestic development & support became necessary not to make lives better, but to expand big business's tentacles throughout the land...as well as other lands.

And of course we didn't have these many socialist programs 150 years ago. But there still existed federal support, financing, lawmaking, the courts, infrastructure & management, defense, coinage of money, education, disaster relief, hospitals, pension funds, welfare/relief programs (spotty at first), poorhouses, sanitation commission, Dept. of Agriculture, abolishment of slavery, Municipal Board of Health, Freedman's Bureau, immigration legislation, Civil Rights Act, Dept. of Education, State Board of Health, appointment of the first Supervising Surgeon (precursor to the Surgeon General), American Federation of Labor, abolishment of child labor, National Quarantine Act, even the national YMCA/YWCA & Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and many many more supportive functions of the federal government that benefited both the social sector & private business sector.

Yet, despite the persistent, but certainly not overbearing presence of the federal government in people's lives, the nation during that time was still very young, far less developed, and far less technologically advanced. Hell, the United States was still at war with the Indians at that time! In a message to Congress in 1830 "On Indian Removal", Andrew Jackson declared that removal would “incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier.” Clearing Alabama and Mississippi of their Indian populations would “enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.” The Indian Removal Act was signed into law by President Jackson in that same year.

The Declaration of Independence even states, first, unequivocally that “all Men are created equal"...then contradicts itself with, "He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

This is just hidden language of concern that the estimated American Indian population in the 1870 census was larger than the colonial population of five states and 10 territories, despite 92 percent of those American Indians being ineligible to be citizens.

Now, who do you think financed & coordinated these Indian wars & their eventual removal? Who do you think benefited the most?

Also, do you know what the U.S. population was in 1870? 38.5 million! Do you know what it is now? 331 million! Plus, we're far more developed, far more technologically advanced, and far more powerful in terms of imposing our will globally (militarily, covertly, and economically) than before. So naturally there is even greater reliance by big business on federal support, management & financing due to increasing international military & economic competition, increasing global population (almost 8 billion now), increasing scarcity of resources, and increasing domestic & political tensions...and all this coupled with the needs of the people (ie, labor class) that need to be managed by the government just to keep the nation from imploding under the weight of corporate domination & abuses.

I earlier posted the lengthy list of early federal programs & legislation that greatly benefited big businesses & the wealthy. But federal relief & assistance programs for the working class & poor began to really take off during the 1930's during Roosevelt's administration & response to the Great Depression. Yes, that's the government coming to bat to clean up Wall Street's mess...and that's what happens when big business is allowed to dominate the national economy. The blame cannot be placed on the working class for any economic disaster. However, the working class cannot be absolved from being the very ENABLERS of big business domination & corruption.

The peasant class is now called the working/middle class. The fat Kings are now called big business...its weapon being the protection & support from taxpayer funded big government. Tyranny's methods have evolved, but the system hasn't changed----the rich (ruling class) capitalizing on the fruits of human labor & ingenuity.

 

Does anyone stop and think, WHY the government is mandated by the Constitution to defend/protect its citizens, from any threats to their civil liberties, foreign or domestic? Why it must act, to protect its citizen's rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Just as the free enterprise market is fueled by supply and demand, Government involvement is fueled by cause and effect. It is the abuses by imperfect humans(greed, selfishness, apathy, inhumanity, racism, elitism, egocentric) that is the "cause". And, it is the involvement of Government that is the "effect".

Does the government force anyone to accept the benefits(handouts), or become a part of, any of its social programs? So when you retire, you can tell the government to stick their retirement benefits up their Khyber. And, you can also tell them, that "we don't need no stinking" disability, healthcare, public schools, emergency services, subsidized housing, and unemployment benefits. If you don't want to avail yourself or family to these services and benefits, THEN DON'T. Why do you want to shame our government for providing benefits and services, for our abandoned or abused wife's, our homeless citizens, our legal immigrants, our infirmed and disabled citizens, our unwanted and uneducated children, our unwanted pregnancies, and our injured veterans? Why do you what to shame those who accept these benefits and services? These programs are to help the impoverished, and those economically displaced because of Capitalism.

Many people love to mindlessly parrot, that Big Government interferes in their everyday lives, including its control over Capitalism. But they are always LIGHT on the specifics, or if government's intervention is a good thing, or a bad thing. Is it good that government provide subsidies to farmers to make their businesses more profitable, and to encourage farm production. Should the government provide stimulus, or bail-out packages to auto and banking corporations, to try and save jobs, homes, people, and the economy? Or should they, like in Capitalism, let them all sink? Conversely, should the government put a tax on cigarettes and alcohol, to discourage a behavior of its citizens, that is a proven medical risk to their lives? Or, like Capitalism, should they just ignore the risks, allow corporations to keep making a profit, and just let the market forces decide(Corporatocracy)? Should the Government, also allow private citizens to buy missiles, anti-aircraft guns, tanks, or bioweapons, to protect their 2nd amendment rights?

In summary, If you don't want government benefits and services, THEN REFUSE THEM. You are NOT being forced. If you don't want your taxes to be used to support the services and benefits to insure Domestic Tranquility, or Promote the Public Welfare, THEN PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. This is your right. The Government is NOT a corporation, so it has no profit motives to interfere in the free market. Its motives are social. Stop shaming others who are less fortunate, by implying that they are lazy, choose to be government dependent, underachievers, have no self-esteem, or are ignorant and stupid. Only God judges, the rest of us can only project or empathize.

So please, there is no Big government involvement threatening our free market system. In reality, it is the corporations that threaten our free government. There is no Big government threatening our civil liberties. It is "We the people..", that IS the government. So either PROVE the adverse effect of any government involvement in our free market system, or the adverse benefits of any government programs, or just move on.

 

Then tell me, what happens to a company when its workers go on strike? What happens to the government if its workers decide to walk off the job?

When you come to your answer, you'll see that capitalism doesn't produce labor or capital. Capitalism capitalizes on our socialistic tendencies to commit to labor for capital (goods/services) in the furtherance of support & mutual survival of the group. Essentially, capitalism co-opts human social behavior & tendencies as a means to enrich the Few at the expense of the Many (group).

Capitalism (which can also occur even among primitive groups) is unsustainable because it (1) destroys social cohesion & harmony, (2) threatens survival of its members, and (3) cannot exist unless it can continue to dominate. Today, capitalism has become especially dangerous to humanity & the environment and should be eliminated. It has no place in a truly advanced, progressive civilization.

Definitions:

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Capital: In economics, capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work. For example, a stone or an arrow is capital for a hunter-gatherer who can use it as a hunting instrument; similarly, roads are capital for inhabitants of a city.

 

It's just a social tool that can be useful or not. It can get dangerous when it's a surgeon, for example, who may be motivated to do that high-risk surgery on you for more profit. Or a drug company, who wants to make everybody think their new-but-actually-not-so-different drug is better so they spend more money on propaganda (advertisements) than actual R&D.

It's rational to assume that profit will get people to work harder, but hard work isn't always productive. In designing an economy, incentives should be aligned with goals and capitalism is just one available tool.

 

And that is basic common sense given the nature of human nature .

Capitalism is wonderful and great for the people of a nation if structured and regulated wisely to counteract what simple greed and irresponsibility and even immorality tends to do under capitalism .

We have seen two forms of capitalism. The post ww2 model thanks to fdr created the largest middle class in history while still producing and sustaining the very rich.

The current model after both parties changed capitalism has disemboweled Americans and is destroying our middle as it creates more working poor. But it maxes out the wealth of the few rich . Only an idiot would have changed our economy!

 

Plunder as in bought and paid for it provided jobs that did not previously exist. There weren't for instance rubber trees in Brazil before Ford introduced them. Synthetic Rubber ended the need about the same time most of the trees died because they were planted to close together making them much to vulnerable to disease. All in all Ford was a much better boss than the King of Belgium who had Congolese killed for not meeting impossibly high quotas.

 

Power corrupts.

 

A company with its workers on strike loses revenue and profit. If the strike goes on long enough the company closes its doors and ceases to exist, goes broke, and turns all of its former workers into unemployed. If government workers go on strike government continues on as usual. If it gets dire the government simply passes a law that its workers cannot strike which is about the same as saying they must work aka enslavement.

Capitalism produces labor and more capital through naturally occurring human tendencies. Natural human tendencies are to better an individual's life; it is not to further the support and survival of the group or to harmonize with others outside of a very tight small circle and it is not to insure everybody else lives better. Socialism "produces" capital and labor through confiscation and enslavement, which is not producing at all because nothing new is generated. If an entrepreneur starts a company with his own or private capital he offers individuals jobs where they voluntarily provide labor in return for compensation that the individual is satisfied with. That compensation is seen by the individual as bettering his/her life. On the other hand he or she is unlikely to view life as getting better if he is coerced into working for the government at whatever compensation the government decrees, which would be the same as every other person. However, it is true that this will likely enhance social cohesion and harmony just as it did with slavery.

These are pretty good so long as you understand that "community as a whole" means government, and that socialism is accurately an economic theory, not really a political theory.

 

Government attracts the type

 

That is called misreading the market in the free private enterprise vernacular, which many companies, large and small, are wont to do from time to time.

 

Correction: the largest middle class in history was created by industrialists in the late 1800s and early 1900s, not by FDR models or actions. Until WWII came along and saved his bacon, FDR was a near economic disaster, greatly aggravating the depression pretty much started by Hoover. (Though both had good opposite intentions.)

 

1st you can't get that drug approved today. If you don't do the r&d as prescribed by the givernment. The system isn't because tend of thousands of test cases may not be enough to find

and how do you propose to make sure that those watching aren't every bit as awful as those being wstched.?

 

Good Post - and very true. It was Reagan / Reaganomics that started us down this path - the de-industrialization of the US economy.