Pro-Capitalism

[Rores28]

Does anyone know of any really good books that are pro-capitalism / free market / libertarianism that are not shallow conservative demagoguery?

I want a measured, well-researched analysis. Or even a book that presents several different kinds of economic ideologies in a balanced manner would be great.

Thanks!

[cyberbob]

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is an EXCELLENT explanation of...basic economics! And it also explains WHY government intervention in the forms of rent control, minimum wage, subsidies, price ceilings and floors, and virtually every other form of intervention has negative UNINTENDED consequences. It even explains why the Soviet Union's leader's couldn't keep track of all the different prices despite being very intelligent people.

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises
Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

These and Murray Rothbard are excellent authors of pro-capitalist, libertarian ideas and they're all extremely intelligent.

[Rores28]

Cool, thanks a lot Bob!

[Rores28]

Anyone know of any equally good books that refute these point!??

[prickly_pete]

Anyone know of any equally good books that refute these point!??

David Harvey's entire career is an attack on Neoliberalism.

[Rores28]

Thanks a lot!

word

[ralfyman]

Anyone know of any equally good books that refute these point!??

Marx and common sense.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell is an EXCELLENT explanation of...basic economics! And it also explains WHY government intervention in the forms of rent control, minimum wage, subsidies, price ceilings and floors, and virtually every other form of intervention has negative UNINTENDED consequences. It even explains why the Soviet Union's leader's couldn't keep track of all the different prices despite being very intelligent people.

Socialism by Ludwig von Mises
Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

These and Murray Rothbard are excellent authors of pro-capitalist, libertarian ideas and they're all extremely intelligent.

Just a word of warning Rores those seem highly biased to me and not in keeping with the well balanced measured texts that you asked for. Such authors are fine after reading more objectional introductionary texts such as for example stuff by Heywood or Levick, but don't expect an unbiased view of the right from the likes of Friedman or Hayek.

[OrphanPip]

Friedman is a fairly influential economist though, you can't really understand where the current right is coming from without him.

As to someone on the opposite side of the coin from the radical free market capitalist like Friedman, Amartya Sen is probably the most influential "leftist" economist around.

[prickly_pete]

Is it really accurately though to say that Friedman and Hayek represent the political right?

[Pierre Menard]

Is it really accurately though to say that Friedman and Hayek represent the political right?


It isn't. They have far more in common with Classical Liberalism/slightly moderate libertarianism.

[G L Wilson]

Is it really accurately though to say that Friedman and Hayek represent the political right?

Have Friedman and Hayek not been proven inherently wrong?

[OrphanPip]

It isn't. They have far more in common with Classical Liberalism/slightly moderate libertarianism.

And that differs from the current political right in what way? Apart from social conservatism, which is only a minor subset of right wing politics everywhere but the US. Friedman worked in the Regan administration and was a major adviser to the Republican party, his ideas are at the base of the dominant right wing economic policies.

[G L Wilson]

I think that we can discuss economics but not politics, fellas.

[Crass the head]

a discourse on inequality by jean jacques rousseau is a classic piece refuting basic tenets of capitalism.

To be ironic, I'll recommend literature from a philosopher I hate, thus being at least slightly more selfless than her philosophy would indicate man should be: Ayn Rand's books pretty much defend capitalism to the bone.

[G L Wilson]

Adam Smith. He must be worth a go.

[Pierre Menard]

And that differs from the current political right in what way? Apart from social conservatism, which is only a minor subset of right wing politics everywhere but the US. Friedman worked in the Regan administration and was a major adviser to the Republican party, his ideas are at the base of the dominant right wing economic policies.



Ah, in a big way. Classic Liberals were for small government, the current political right is not. And you can't just say 'apart from social conservatism' when talking about two Americans and American politics. Social conservatism is a major difference between the two philosophies.
His ideas, like all ideas are rarely followed to the tee. Friedman, but also Hayek would be very much against the big spending right-wing governments of today.

[blazeofglory]

If you want to know anything in detail about capitalism and its usefulness Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, the trio are unbeatable. Read them deeply but all you will arrive at is claptrap at the end of the day since their ideas are proved wrong and obsolete now

[G L Wilson]

If you want to know anything in detail about capitalism and its usefulness Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, the trio are unbeatable. Read them deeply but all you will arrive at is claptrap at the end of the day since their ideas are proved wrong and obsolete now

And it's definitely claptrap as there's no other word for it.

[Pierre Menard]

If you want to know anything in detail about capitalism and its usefulness Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman, the trio are unbeatable. Read them deeply but all you will arrive at is claptrap at the end of the day since their ideas are proved wrong and obsolete now


Yes, great advice. Read three authors. Just three. No more. Don't bother reading extensively on the subject and definitely don't worry about forming your own opinion as Blazes assures us all it's 'claptrap'. Just read three authors (who couldn't even agree on what the word 'Capitalism' meant) and be done with it. That is obviously the best way to go...

[OrphanPip]

There is a lot of writing from Chicago School economist supporting a more deregulated market. Friedman is a bit of an extremist out of that school who supported privatization beyond what most free market economist would argue for. Friedman wasn't a perfect person, he didn't have the answers to everything. We should note that Friedman's policies of deregulation contributed to the global meltdown. Canada's more regulated banking sector weathered the storm without much trouble. Clearly, deregulation is not the answer to everything. Sometimes the government should not be involved, sometimes it should.

Ayn Rand should never be taken seriously by anyone, her philosophy is a flimsy and poorly argued renamed libertarianism. Greenspan... well what he managed to do to the US economy with interest rates should be reason enough not to bother with his ideas on economics.

[Crass the head]

Very well said.

[G L Wilson]

Money buys blood and sweat but never tears.

[Syd A]

Does anyone know of any really good books that are pro-capitalism / free market / libertarianism that are not shallow conservative demagoguery?

I want a measured, well-researched analysis. Or even a book that presents several different kinds of economic ideologies in a balanced manner would be great.

Thanks!

Murray Rothbard - For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty
Herbert Spencer - Social Statics (not exactly capitalism or libertarianism, but a precursor thereof)
Frederic Bastiat - The Law
Lysander Spooner - No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority
Ayn rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
David Friedman - The Machinery of Freedom

[G L Wilson]

The wealth of nations is counted in ideas, good and bad.

[Pierre Menard]

There is a lot of writing from Chicago School economist supporting a more deregulated market. Friedman is a bit of an extremist out of that school who supported privatization beyond what most free market economist would argue for. Friedman wasn't a perfect person, he didn't have the answers to everything. We should note that Friedman's policies of deregulation contributed to the global meltdown. Canada's more regulated banking sector weathered the storm without much trouble. Clearly, deregulation is not the answer to everything. Sometimes the government should not be involved, sometimes it should.

I don't really disagree with most of that. Though it should be kept in mind that there were a lot of things that contributed to the meltdown. Government involvement certainly played it's part. But most of what you said has little to do with my point which was that Friedman and (especially) Hayek are not the exact same as the current political right, largely because of social issues (see Friedman's drug policy for example and his general support of less intrusive government socially) and some economic issues (probably more in the case of Hayek).



Ayn Rand should never be taken seriously by anyone, her philosophy is a flimsy and poorly argued renamed libertarianism.

Meh. She was a mega-idealist and like all mega-idealists, got so caught up in her own beliefs that she couldn't see they simply weren't possible. I think she was an okay thinker, but not a great philosopher. There's a lot of flaws to her thought, but I still feel that many people who criticise her, actually have very little idea about what she actually believed i.e. people who still don't get that her definition of 'self-interest' is not the same as the common societal 'do whatever you want' definition, among others. She was also not fond of Friedman at all.

But this all reinforces my point that reading a diverse range of authors is best, especially politically, when there is quite a lot of diversity even among those who call themselves 'capitalists'.

[Rores28]

Haven't checked in for awhile as I thought this thread was dead. The continued discussion and suggestions should prove useful !

Thanks everyone

[prickly_pete]

You'd really have to dig to find a book that doesn't promote capitalism. Pretty much all thinkers endorse massive control of human behavior in one way or another.

[G L Wilson]

You'd really have to dig to find a book that doesn't promote capitalism. Pretty much all thinkers endorse massive control of human behavior in one way or another.

If we could loosen control over ourselves and our environment a little bit, so much more might be released to compensate our loss. At least that's the dream.

[prickly_pete]

Self-discipline I support, but the system doesn't trust us enough to let us control ourselves. Thats why there's 18 cops on every corner in Manhattan. We're not trusted so somebody else has to be a mediator for any problems we might have.

[G L Wilson]

Self-discipline I support, but the system doesn't trust us enough to let us control ourselves. Thats why there's 18 cops on every corner in Manhattan. We're not trusted so somebody else has to be a mediator for any problems we might have.

The vultures pick our bones for everything that they can get, while the 18 cops look for crime. It's a sick joke testified to by the vast majority because most people are sick.

[prickly_pete]

Oh yeah, deception is accepted practice in the business world but God forbid you smoke marijuana

[G L Wilson]

Oh yeah, deception is accepted practice in the business world but God forbid you smoke marijuana

In a capitalist society God forbid you do anything unproductive.

[prickly_pete]

...or do anything that would prevent the entire system from functioning efficiently.

[G L Wilson]

Dissent is certainly not allowed to disturb profit-making, and the law is there to be bought and mass media is in the hands of the rich. Dissent has no chance of obtaining traction in the muck of politics at least while money is involved in politics. It is a grim reality that has defeated better men than me before, and it will continue to hand out defeat after defeat to progressive thinkers until the whole system collapses with the end of the world. As a bloke once said, 'Greed is good.' Do you think slavery would have ended if it was thought not to stagnate the economy? Do you think that women were given the vote because of their reason? In a capitalist society, a value must be a value to the economy or it will simply not succeed. That's the truth as I see, it's pretty stark.

[prickly_pete]

Most progressive thinkers simply uphold the values that an advanced society promotes anyways. Racial equality, social welfare, combating homelessness, ending various types of discrimination, eliminating handguns, non-violent resolutions to conflicts...these are values that an advanced industrial society needs to function efficiently anyways. If a worker hires people based on ethnicity thats ineeficient. If people relied on themselves for protection through ownership of weapons than there'd be no reason for large police forces. Of course the system wants peaceful resolution to everyday disputes - if people resolved things (or at least SOME things) through violence they might turn on their masters. So its very important to promote the idea that docility and passivity are noble characteristics, and truth be told the progressives in America latched onto this idea hook, line, and sinker.

So even the self-described "radicals" are basically just serving the interests of their masters. Very few ever dare to challenge the values of the system. Most who do are sitting in prison somewhere.

[G L Wilson]

In a capitalist society, a value that cannot be quantified has no value, e.g., happiness is not necessary to capitalism, simply because it has no price.

[prickly_pete]

But strangely enough most people will tell you're they're happy largely because being unhappy - for any reason - is a grave sin in this world.

[G L Wilson]

But strangely enough most people will tell you're they're happy largely because being unhappy - for any reason - is a grave sin in this world.

Kindness I miss, prickly_pete, kindness. All my old people are dead.

[prickly_pete]

At least you're capable of grief. The idea that someone could remain silent under the yolk of grief is something that our society absolutely WILL NOT tolerate. We're supposed to experience a loss and then immediately move into the healing phase (either by going on talk shows to talk about it, posting blogs on facebook, hitting the gym, getting back to the office). The possibility of someone living in permanent anguish is something the system just will not accept under any circumstances.

For my part, it's better to have the capacity to lose things and to feel sick at having lost them than to live in a permanent state of adolescence.

[BienvenuJDC]

In a capitalist society, a value that cannot be quantified has no value, e.g., happiness is not necessary to capitalism, simply because it has no price.

I don't believe that happiness is necessary for any type society. Whether one is speaking of Socialism, communism, or any other economic/political system, no system has any regard for happiness. I'm not sure why you want to apply that only to capitalism.

[prickly_pete]

I have a very hard time believing an agrarian or pastoral or hunter-gatherer society would be able to function if depression existed on the level that it does in our own. Our society can get away with it because the vast majority of jobs and tasks require minimal effort. So long as someone can drag themselves to work and punch a time card all the necessities of life will be provided for (and in many circusmstances even this isn't necessary).

At any rate industrial societies have a vested interest in making sure that expression of unhappiness is kept to a minimum. Depression is medicated, outbursts of anger are not tolerated, speeding is not tolerated, disliking anyone for any reason at all is not tolerated. The moral demands placed on the modern individual are infinitely higher than that in societies several hundred years ago and the demands are unrealistic for the most part. Thus alot of people are unhappy because they - naturally - fail to meet what is expected of them.

Its not so much that other societies need happiness to function, its that industrial societies breed unhappiness, depression, anxiety and other psychological and social problems whereas these things are virtually non-existent (except for cases where depression is purely biologically based) in other societies.

[G L Wilson]

The modern word that I hate the most is 'closure'. It values human emotion at zero as if emotion was somehow irrelevant to the "real" world, that only logic and reason can express civilisation. It is patent nonsense that shuts people down most cruelly. It cuts people in half. It is inhuman.

[prickly_pete]

Yeah, you could say I'm looking forward to the downfall of our civilization. I don't think there's any reason to think that a collapse couldn't happen or that we couldn't bring it on ourselves if we tried. A big start in the right direction would be convincing these self-proclaimed "radicals" to actually challenge the system instead of helping it to function more efficiently. All this crap about gay marriage and health care is a waste of freaking time, nice in theory, but distracting us from whats really important - the loss of our freedom and dignity. In 200 years it wont matter a hoot if a dog can marry three transvestites and a piece of swiss cheese because by then we'll all be genetically engineered products anyways. Lets keep our eyes on the ball here.

[cyberbob]

^ You enjoying that little monologue of yours?

Anyway, I don't see how Basic Economics is "highly biased". It does have a free market slant but that's to be expected from almost any economist.

The TS said "Pro-Capitalism" so by definition it must be biased. I chose those because they are all highly educated ECONOMISTS (not "philosophers" like Rand) and some of the most famous supporters of Capitalism.

[prickly_pete]

...but in the end if you're endorsing a particular economic policy on moral grounds - which Hayek and Friedman undoubtedly are - than what your educational background looks like matters absolutely nothing. Saying they're economists gives it the veneer of having some kind of objectivity (which implies a sense of fairness, or at least fair-mindedness), but in the end they're just trying to impose their particular system on everybody else because they believe theirs is the Right one with a capital "R" - no different than Marx or Lenin in that respect.

[cyberbob]

...but in the end if you're endorsing a particular economic policy on moral grounds - which Hayek and Friedman undoubtedly are - than what your educational background looks like matters absolutely nothing. Saying they're economists gives it the veneer of having some kind of objectivity (which implies a sense of fairness, or at least fair-mindedness), but in the end they're just trying to impose their particular system on everybody else because they believe theirs is the Right one with a capital "R" - no different than Marx or Lenin in that respect.

It's not about creating a sense of impartiality. It's about getting information from someone who's formally educated on the subject.

If someone asked you to recommend a good pro-communist book would you recommend something by Marx or something written by a hippie off the street?

Like I said, the OP wants a pro-capitalist book. Any book that is recommended will be biased in favor of capitalism. The closest thing I can think of to a non-biased pro-capitalist book is a high school Macroeconomics textbook and even then I'm sure some people would object.

By the very nature of the OP's request there will be a lack of "fair-mindedness". The only thing that would satisfy you would be if it wasn't pro capitalist at all because you obviously do not like capitalism. However, this thread is not about that. It's about naming good pro-capitalist books and I'm naming the ones I've read.

[Syd A]

Don't engage him, cyberbob. He and that Wilson fella are just two children looking for attention.

[prickly_pete]

It's not about creating a sense of impartiality. It's about getting information from someone who's formally educated on the subject.

If someone asked you to recommend a good pro-communist book would you recommend something by Marx or something written by a hippie off the street?

Oh I agree. But I'm not talking about "fair-mindedness" in the sense of giving equal time to both Captialism and, say, Marxism. That goes without saying that any book is going to have its own biases. Rather I think these books try and pretend as though laissez-faire economics is the only logical conclusion that any fair-minded individual can defend which is, frankly, completely bogus. They're considerably more dangerous than Ayn Rand (who is almost universallly acknowledged as a quack) because they pretend as though their conclusions are backed up by hard science when in reality all they're doing is defending a moral position - not a scientific one.

[prickly_pete]

Don't engage him, cyberbob. He and that Wilson fella are just two children looking for attention.

Aren't these boards for the exchange of ideas? Or should we just slap each others tushies and tell ourselves how wonderful we all are?

I mean, god forbid the common man do anything besides kowtow to the big named economists, artists, poets, etc.

[G L Wilson]

Don't engage him, cyberbob. He and that Wilson fella are just two children looking for attention.

Trash talk comes cheap to those who can get away with it, it seems. (The next person who calls me a bot can expect the same notice to be brought to their post.)

[Bessie11]

You have to read first simple books of economy

[Rores28]

You have to read first simple books of economy

Suggestions?

[G L Wilson]

Suggestions?

Economics for Dummies should be a good place for you to start.

[IceM]

Oh I agree. But I'm not talking about "fair-mindedness" in the sense of giving equal time to both Captialism and, say, Marxism. That goes without saying that any book is going to have its own biases. Rather I think these books try and pretend as though laissez-faire economics is the only logical conclusion that any fair-minded individual can defend which is, frankly, completely bogus. They're considerably more dangerous than Ayn Rand (who is almost universallly acknowledged as a quack) because they pretend as though their conclusions are backed up by hard science when in reality all they're doing is defending a moral position - not a scientific one.

No, I think the books on laissez-faire economics are the only logical conclusion for someone who believes in laissez-faire economics. The subsequent attack on individual character for differing views of economic theory only come when one feel threatened by another's belief, normally stemming from ignorance more than anything else.

Even then, this isn't the Cold War era: nobody will consider someone favoring left-leaning economic theory to be an "unfair-minded" individual. That is a strawman attempting to create a moral issue out of a scientific one.

Understanding of macroeconomic theory during America's history--a class I took this year--has demonstrated that the most economic growth has occurred under a deregulated (notice, not purely laissez-faire system) form of market. That is a scientific fact, measured by the hard numbers you embrace. Whether moral attachments arise is irrelevant; the facts are there to support the idea.

But do remember, laissez-faire economics appeals to those who already have a predisposition to those theories; it is not the strawman you suggest. Theories appeal to people with the proper dispositions for them; fair-mindedness is only an attachment used to appeal to audiences already established.

[prickly_pete]

I think you're confused. I'm not concerned about which economic theory produces the most growth. Clearly some are better than others. Its the idea that growth is unquestionably good that I have a problem with. Alot of neoliberal types consider the accumulation of wealth to be an issue of freedom and thus morality. This cant really be described as fair-minded.

[IceM]

It can't be described as fair-minded to the neoliberal. Yet this thread isn't concerned with neoliberalism, it is concerned with pro-capitalist works.

[prickly_pete]

Nobody defines themselves as a "capitalist"

[IceM]

Except those that write of and defend the capitalist economic ideology.

[Rores28]

Economics for Dummies should be a good place for you to start.

:frown5:

[G L Wilson]

:frown5:

Seriously economic theory is a bore.

[Heteronym]

Suggestions?

I understand Henry Hazlitt's Economics in one Lesson is a classic and respected introduction to economic theory that covers most of the points in simple terms.

[Darcy88]

Considering the present economic situation, I don't think this is the time to be reading pro-capitalist books. But if that's what you want, as someone already suggested Friedman and Hayek would be good places to start.

The Value of Nothing by Raj Patel and The Affluent Society by John Kenneth Galbraith are two lucidly written, deeply thought-provoking texts from which I learned a fair deal about economics. Patel drives the nail into the coffin of capitalist free-market ideology, succinctly presenting its history and its flaws, drawing back the curtain. Greenspan is revealed as the half-wit hack he is.

Not what you were asking for but great texts regardless. Patel's book is a quick read and its funny as hell.

[Heteronym]

The economic situation is dire indeed, and I believe it's been caused by runaway free market capitalism; however let's not kid ourselves that a change is imminent. Just look at the situation in Europe: Greece went bankrupt, it was an isolated case, they said; Ireland followed, it was a different case too. Then Portugal. Now it's Italy and Spain; Denmark and Belgium have the noose around their neck too. The USA is in trouble too. And yet all the politicians and economists insist the markets are fine, that they must continue to do business as usual, that it's the countries' fault and they have to implement austerity measures. Much of the Europe is leaning to the right at the moment so I don't expect a change to happen while they're in power.

So I think it's still necessary to read books that explain what capitalism and free market neoliberalism are. But what we need is to read critical voices that explain where it's gone wrong and what needs to be changed.

[Darcy88]

The economic situation is dire indeed, and I believe it's been caused by runaway free market capitalism; however let's not kid ourselves that a change is imminent. Just look at the situation in Europe: Greece went bankrupt, it was an isolated case, they said; Ireland followed, it was a different case too. Then Portugal. Now it's Italy and Spain; Denmark and Belgium have the noose around their neck too. The USA is in trouble too. And yet all the politicians and economists insist the markets are fine, that they must continue to do business as usual, that it's the countries' fault and they have to implement austerity measures. Much of the Europe is leaning to the right at the moment so I don't expect a change to happen while they're in power.

So I think it's still necessary to read books that explain what capitalism and free market neoliberalism are. But what we need is to read critical voices that explain where it's gone wrong and what needs to be changed.

Don't forget France...

I completely agree. And the book I mentioned before - The Value of Nothing - does exactly that.

Free-market capitalism posits growth and profit as the highest values. Not the environment, not justice, not health, not happiness - just the bottom line. Its inhuman and its illogical, as infinite growth is precluded by finite resources.

China's rapid growth is supposed to be good even though its been made possible only through the prolific burning of coal. They wreck the environment in order to manufacture superfluous consumer items and this is supposed to be a good thing. The oil sands development in my own country of Canada is a boon according to every economist and yet its turning a broad Florida-sized swath of land into a setting that makes the moon look like a tropical paradise by comparison.

And I don't think a change is imminent. Money has corrupted democracy to such an extent, the power elite has such an iron grasp on the levers of power, I don't see how genuine profound change is liable to occur. But we ought still try. Its all we can do.

[cyberbob]

Don't forget France...

I completely agree. And the book I mentioned before - The Value of Nothing - does exactly that.

Free-market capitalism posits growth and profit as the highest values. Not the environment, not justice, not health, not happiness - just the bottom line. Its inhuman and its illogical, as infinite growth is precluded by finite resources.

China's rapid growth is supposed to be good even though its been made possible only through the prolific burning of coal. They wreck the environment in order to manufacture superfluous consumer items and this is supposed to be a good thing. The oil sands development in my own country of Canada is a boon according to every economist and yet its turning a broad Florida-sized swath of land into a setting that makes the moon look like a tropical paradise by comparison.

And I don't think a change is imminent. Money has corrupted democracy to such an extent, the power elite has such an iron grasp on the levers of power, I don't see how genuine profound change is liable to occur. But we ought still try. Its all we can do.

Ugh. Capitalism does not posit any values. It's a system for distributing goods and services. Perhaps BUSINESS posits those values, but that is the very nature of business. Capitalism is neutral on things like the environment, justice, health, and happiness just like communism or any other economic system. All of these things exist under both systems, the only difference is that their priority is dictated by the market under capitalism and a central planner under communism.

As for the China coal-burning thing, once again you're unfairly singling out capitalism. Industrialization and environmental degredation exist with or without capitalism. China is one of the most highly polluted countries and is still communist.

And the whole "superfluous consumer items" thing is pretty funny. The whole point of the market is to get goods and services where and when they are wanted. If there is a large amount of consumer items the it's because people like you and me demand them. According to the theory of profits that you dislike, it is not economically viable to create superfluous goods. It's actually under centrally-planned systems that the most waste occurs. Lots of goods being made in one area where they're barely needed while another place that needs them desperately goes without because of policy (in the case of food or medicine this can be fatal).

It seems like your problem is not that the power elite or the system don't share your values, but rather the majority of people don't share them. That is how capitalism works. If everyone was like you then there would be no reason to pollute the air because no one would demand those superfluous goods.

Just so you know, I'm a Vegan and advocate of environmetalism. I just think you're placing the blame on the wrong target.

[BienvenuJDC]

Ugh. Capitalism does not posit any values. It's a system for distributing goods and services. Perhaps BUSINESS posits those values, but that is the very nature of business. Capitalism is neutral on things like the environment, justice, health, and happiness just like communism or any other economic system. All of these things exist under both systems, the only difference is that their priority is dictated by the market under capitalism and a central planner under communism.

As for the China coal-burning thing, once again you're unfairly singling out capitalism. Industrialization and environmental degredation exist with or without capitalism. China is one of the most highly polluted countries and is still communist.

And the whole "superfluous consumer items" thing is pretty funny. The whole point of the market is to get goods and services where and when they are wanted. If there is a large amount of consumer items the it's because people like you and me demand them. According to the theory of profits that you dislike, it is not economically viable to create superfluous goods. It's actually under centrally-planned systems that the most waste occurs. Lots of goods being made in one area where they're barely needed while another place that needs them desperately goes without because of policy (in the case of food or medicine this can be fatal).

It seems like your problem is not that the power elite or the system don't share your values, but rather the majority of people don't share them. That is how capitalism works. If everyone was like you then there would be no reason to pollute the air because no one would demand those superfluous goods.

Just so you know, I'm a Vegan and advocate of environmetalism. I just think you're placing the blame on the wrong target.

Finally....someone who makes some sense...

[OrphanPip]

China has not been a communist country since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in the 80s though.

[BienvenuJDC]

China has not been a communist country since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in the 80s though.

Technically it is State Capitalism...but you might as well just call it Communism. The State pretty much owns it all anyway.

[OrphanPip]

Technically it is State Capitalism...but you might as well just call it Communism. The State pretty much owns it all anyway.

No, it's mostly private enterprise, the state owned industries have been liquidated for the most part. Which in turn has resulted in the loss of most social services nets or many of the baby boomber aged people in China. They are less socialized these days than most Western Democracies.

[Darcy88]

Ugh. Capitalism does not posit any values. It's a system for distributing goods and services. Perhaps BUSINESS posits those values, but that is the very nature of business. Capitalism is neutral on things like the environment, justice, health, and happiness just like communism or any other economic system. All of these things exist under both systems, the only difference is that their priority is dictated by the market under capitalism and a central planner under communism.

As for the China coal-burning thing, once again you're unfairly singling out capitalism. Industrialization and environmental degredation exist with or without capitalism. China is one of the most highly polluted countries and is still communist.

And the whole "superfluous consumer items" thing is pretty funny. The whole point of the market is to get goods and services where and when they are wanted. If there is a large amount of consumer items the it's because people like you and me demand them. According to the theory of profits that you dislike, it is not economically viable to create superfluous goods. It's actually under centrally-planned systems that the most waste occurs. Lots of goods being made in one area where they're barely needed while another place that needs them desperately goes without because of policy (in the case of food or medicine this can be fatal).

It seems like your problem is not that the power elite or the system don't share your values, but rather the majority of people don't share them. That is how capitalism works. If everyone was like you then there would be no reason to pollute the air because no one would demand those superfluous goods.

Just so you know, I'm a Vegan and advocate of environmetalism. I just think you're placing the blame on the wrong target.

I am not placing blame on the wrong target. And I am not a communist. Capitalism places profit - CAPITAL - as the only value, at the expense of all other values. The very fact that capitalism is as you say "neutral on things like the environment, justice, health, and happiness" only goes to prove how flawed and destructive it is.

And China is not communist. Rid yourself of that misconception please.

As far as superfluous consumer goods.... Your critique of my position is what's funny. The fact is - the corporations create the demand, advertising creates the demand. You say - "According to the theory of profits that you dislike, it is not economically viable to create superfluous goods." Exactly. So demand is created, its manufactured.

And you think my answer is a centrally planned economy? No no. Far from it.

Your comment on communism and medicine is kind of hilarious considering the state of health-care in The United States.

This is the fatal mistake that we've made - assuming capitalism is in accord with human nature, that its somehow ingrained in the very way of things. People are not as dumb as that, not so ignorant and misguided that they'd trade their own health and happiness and that of every future generation just for the abundance offered by a Wall-Mart, or for the illusory hope of gettin lucky and striking it rich themselves.

Capitalism prevailed because it took power politically and then culturally. Simple as that. Its not the best system, rather its a downright dastardly, dysfunctional, dystopian one. If we are to have it then it must be checked - severely. It must be brought to heel, forced to operate under certain conditions and within certain bounds.

And the whole point of the market is not to "get goods and services where and when they are wanted." Its purpose is to exchange goods with the intention of making a profit, as big a profit as possible. Need often does not factor into it. Read the figures on how much food is trashed in the west each year - good quality food from the supermarket or the farm, millions upon millions of tonnes, never reaching those who need it.

Maybe capitalism is not the problem. Maybe its merely that capitalism has taken over, that its gone too far and seeped its way into every nook and cranny of our culture and our politics. I'd be willing to cede that much. Perhaps I should qualify my criticism by specifying that its unchecked capitalism which I so thoroughly and passionately abhor.

[BienvenuJDC]

No, it's mostly private enterprise, the state owned industries have been liquidated for the most part. Which in turn has resulted in the loss of most social services nets or many of the baby boomber aged people in China. They are less socialized these days than most Western Democracies.

Good...maybe in a decade or so the progress will have taken some positive effect. But in the mean time, the socialistic programs have taken its toll.

[OrphanPip]

Good...maybe in a decade or so the progress will have taken some positive effect. But in the mean time, the socialistic programs have taken its toll.

The communist legacy is a mixed bag, more people have been lifted out of poverty by Mao than any other world leader in history.

[Alexander III]

The communist legacy is a mixed bag, more people have been lifted out of poverty by Mao than any other world leader in history.

But then again Mao is responsible for more deaths than any other world leader in history. I think the estimates are 40-60 million from his induced famines to progress the country.

[OrphanPip]

But then again Mao is responsible for more deaths than any other world leader in history. I think the estimates are 40-60 million from his induced famines to progress the country.

Like I said, it is a mixed bag. Mao oversaw the fastest industrialization of a society in history. He doubled average life expectancy, and cut infant mortality by a large margin. Without Mao, the rapid economic expansion overseen by Deng Xiaoping would have been impossible.

The famine (which likely killed around 20-25 million) is an obvious blemish on his record, and the Cultural Revolution was another disaster that steeped the country into temporary anarchy. Although, even the famines are a mixed issue. Obviously, some of the policies of collectivism were largely inefficient, but the largest cause was probably over-procurement by local party officials. Lysenkoism as an agricultural pseudoscience played a role too, and caused famines in the Soviet Union too.