Introduction to Capitalism
Capitalism, both morally and pragmatically, is not just justified — it’s dramatically needed. The economic and moral benefit of resorting to the system of financial freedom is absurdly necessary.
I will not pretend to be unbiased here. Though I used to support economic restriction, years of research and contemplation have brought me to the conclusion that anything less than capitalism is not only destined to failure — it’s wrong.
Capitalism helps the poor by raising the average standard of living — this is why the poor in the US would be considered rich in other countries. This is, of course, not to say that the standard of living could be hire — hence the need to stop the economic prohibitive laws.
Capitalism helps the middle class by allowing them to invest to a greater degree — the middle class is disappearing in the US today because they are becoming part of the upper class. Freedom breeds success.
Capitalism helps the rich by not robbing them of that which they have earned. By not squandering the income that had been achieved. This in turn adds to the incomes of the lower and middle classes by turning the rich income into efficient investment and business creation, and not lost through political bureaucracy.
Nation after nation has discovered a simple idea. Government isn’t the answer to our economic problems. In 1680, French finance minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert joined a group of French businessmen, led by M. Le Gendre. The finance minister asked how the government could help the business owners, and Le Gendre quickly replied, “Laissez-nous faire” — “Let us be.” The economy doesn’t need the state to look over it. Economic restrictions don’t help business, they restrict business. That’s the point of economic restriction.
Freedom works. Freedom is moral — freedom helps achieve. Freedom is not to be shirked, freedom is the responsibility of the people and its government. Rather than seeking ways to restrict the economy, we should be strengthening it through economic liberty — capitalism.
My purpose for writing this series is simple. In the great American classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, actor Jimmy Stewart, playing the role of young statesman “Jefferson Smith”, said something that I have never been able to go a day without thinking of.
He was giving a one-man filibuster, a one man war against a political machine of corruption. At one point during his long monologue, Smith leaned over his podium, desperately tired and friendless. But though his body was tired, his mind was afire and poured hope out of his eyes. Leaning for support, he said, “Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask. Get up there with that lady that’s up on top of this Capitol dome, that lady that stands for liberty. Take a look at this country through her eyes if you really want to see something.”
My purpose is simple. I want you to see the world through the eyes of lady liberty. I want you to think in the terms of freedom and peace. I want you to see the people who live for achievement as the heroes that they are. This is my purpose. I’m not ashamed to say that this is my bias.
“Look … through her eyes if ya really wanna see something.”
Remember that you can receive automatic updates of
Roger Partridge said,
July 17th, 2008 at 6:41 am
Shaun,
Thank you for a good piece on Capitalism. I believe you hit the nail on the head. We need more thinking of your type to ‘fight the good fight’. I look forward to reading more of your articles.
Roger
Biff said,
November 28th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Milton Freeman would be proud.
But Colbert was not a Capitalist. He believed in Mercantilism.
Mercantilism is based not on a free market, but is based on the idea of national and international trade. And a “Nation State” should build in protections to keep out import but increase export.
Other wise, as believed in Colbert’s time, nations will run dry of things like gold, silver and bullion.
So you bring it in though exports , but you do not let it out in imports.
Also Mercantilism is strongly tied to Colonialism which is all about restricting imports and exports and again has nothing to do with a “Free Market” anything but.
To Colbert’s credit he did, in part, save France from a general financial crisis by allowing free trade within France close to the free trade between US States.
A good point on Mercantilism is that it is not considered a true Political Economy. That is it evolved not from academics but from the merchants and ruling classes who profited the most from it. So without a question they wanted no restrictions.
Mercantilism was not a great system and there are 3 distinct revolutions from it American, French and Russian. All revolutions are or against colonialism and mercantilism.
Not until you get to Adam Smith with “Wealth Of Nations” in 1776 do you get a true Political Economy theory.
Although Smith is an improvement in economic and political theory, Smith ideas of the “Invisible Hand of Competition” leads to monopoly and a free market system is not free when all competitors are gone and you are left with monopolies.
Also a “general economic crisis” was considered imposable by Smith, Ricardo and other early free market economics.
It was not until you get to Keynes’s theory in the 1930s is a general crisis considered. In his book “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” Keynes argued for full employment and public works to straighten an economy and peoples faith in the economy though public works.