107 Comments »

1. Will said,

   March 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm

   Very good.

   Like the FCC, Medicare restrictions mean a lot of procedures Dad provides costs more than he’s allowed to charge, which in turn raises the costs of other procedures that should be cheaper. It’s just dumb.

2. Troy Camplin said,

   March 21st, 2008 at 10:39 pm

   What a fantastic list. Everyone should read it. One could also put in that corporations don’t pay taxes — they just hand the cost down to the consumer as higher prices (thus hurting the poor, who can afford such price increases less than the rest).

3. Uncle B said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 10:18 am

   Only one objection – sub prime loans!

4. Jason said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 am

   Wow…this article should be on everyone’s reading list right up there with Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” and Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.”

   The best thing about it is that it’s not a burdensome read. Makes the point clearly and simply, but it doesn’t sacrifice the awesomeness that is capitalism.

5. Huckle said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 1:21 pm

   I agree marginally with most if your points, but your argument that removing welfare for the poor and unemployed is totally flawed. I have grown up dependant not on welfare not because my mother (who is a single parent, another story) is lazy, or enjoyed being supported by the state, but because she had to to survive. Yes, too much aid demotivates people from going out and earning a living but too little means that the poor cannot get that vital step on the ladder which can enable them to rebuild their lives.

   Your arhument about equality is also completely flawed. We are not born equal, we are born into families which have a certain amount of assetts. Throughout childhood if you have wealthy parents you undoubtedly will have a lifestyle which is much better than someone without such wealth. True, the poor have the chance to be rich themselves, but they have a much greater task in acheiving their dreams than someone born into money.

6. Brian said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm

   Simple, yet… beutiful! BRAVO!

   “I know. I

7. Patrick Bateman said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm

   “Oh. And big business is actually good. Why? Because they became

8. Brian said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm

   Simple, yet… beautiful! BRAVO!

   Shaun: “I know. I

9. Nickonomics101 said,

   March 22nd, 2008 at 2:24 pm

   Huckle, I understand your concern. In a modestly capitalist society, much freer than ours, you mother would have been helped by private charities set up for just such situations. It’s not the government’s job to help individuals or groups, but only to do things which help all citizens. Taxing some to aid only others is not in that contract. If we weren’t so reliant on papa gov’ment to take care of us, we’d take care of each other. People, and Americans especially are an especially giving group of people. When they are secure and earning a good living, they give money and time very liberally. It isn’t charity if it is forced out of the hands of one to be given to another, that’s theft–I don’t care what the ends are.

   The equality argument, too, is valid. We are all equal–in terms of our rights under the law and the opportunities we have. All people are equally given the right to go find their own fortune, work hard, acquire skills and create their own wealth. Just because someone starts from a family with more money than another, doesn’t necessarily mean that they will end up with more wealth or even with more opportunities. That’s the beauty of the free market-it doesn’t label. Perhaps one of the most psychologically damaging part of the welfare state is the label given to the “poor” who are “helped” by it. Once you fall into being labeled as such, most people will simply accept it as fact and continue that rend as described by the author’s Ayn Rand quote.

   I really hope you’ll start thinking beyond your own situation, too. You believe that welfare was good for you and your mom because she needed something, and the only option she had was to get it from the government, who steals it from other people. Perhaps, in a more objective state of thinking, you’d see that there are lots of charities (and, without the heavy hand of government, would likely be many many more of them) who would have gladly given your mother a hand up. That would have been better for everyone, since the giver would have felt good about their ability to help a fellow human being, your mother would have someone to be grateful towards, and still would have been able to climb out of her unfortunate situation. Private charities are more efficient at directing and aiming gifts, and are less wasteful (in general) than the government, where the money must flow through countless layers of bureaucratic red tape before it even begins to get to people who might need it.

10. Nicholas said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 3:45 pm

    Seriously I think you have no idea what you’re on about.

    1. As much as you buy into cold war anti-communist propaganda, communism isn’t about market control and state worship. I suggest you read Marx before you comment on communism and anti-capitalism.

    2. Any “Pro-Capitalist” aught to hate big business. You know why. It proves a glaring contradiction to their ideal of freedom of competition. Monopolies, whether they be public or privately owned, are a dangerous force in terms of product pricing, product quality, working standards etc.

    3. You emphasize throughout that you believe “every restriction destroys lives”. Well I got a wake up for you. Capitalism is doing as such. I as a worker, am restricted in every way from having any say in how i work and how the production process should be run. Power is overly placed in the hands of Bourgeois. The Proletariat, the workers have no freedom. Freedom under bourgeois law, sure. But they have no freedom from private property, from capital, the force that shackles them, chains them, keeps them slaves to the system, slaves to the bourgeois.

    4. You said capitalism is justice, you’re right, it is BOURGEOIS justice, it is NOT PROLETARIAN justice. You say that if you work hard you can achieve. You are dead wrong. How can I, a laborer, who earns a measly wage get rich by working hard. Capitalism is the opposite. If you own capital and can set men to work for you, you become successful. But if you are one of those who are slaves to the bourgeoisie, to the property owners, you are trapped, doomed. You can’t be successful under the foot of capital!

    You seriously need to read Marx. It seems you think socialism and communism is about market control and state worship. It is the opposite, It is the emancipation of the proletariat from the shackles of capital and from the shackles of the state.

11. Phil said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Well said and Amen to every point in your article, Shaun.

12. Krowe said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    I really enjoyed this article, well done! The two cents I have to add is in regard to the welfare issue several people have commented on after reading your article. Obviously, the people who have used the welfare benefits have something good to say about them, and I’m sure even more people have taken advantage of the less stigmatized state unemployment benefits, and wouldn’t want to see those become non-existant, right?
    I would encourage people to look into what their state’s welfare benefits really are, and what the people on welfare are required to do to get state aid. Nobody wants to think that the money they’re paying to the government is just going to people who don’t do anything but sit on the couch, eatcheetos, and wait for their next assistance check to come in.
    In Nebraska, you can only receive welfare/cash assistance for 16 months in your LIFETIME. When you go to sign up, there are very specific requirements for what you have to do to get the assistance. 4 weeks maximum of job preparedness classes/job searching for 20 hours a week or more, then after those 4 weeks if you haven’t found a job, you either do community service, on the job training, or the state will assist you in getting your GED if you don’t have that, or other training required so you can get a job. It’s not just a handout without any requirements involved. They have set it up to help people who are willing to put in the time and do the work to help themselves…so that’s right along the lines of getting into the capitalist spirit.

    Food stamp benefits are separate from welfare. They are indefinite from what I understand, and are based on how much you make.

    I know its not a perfect system, and there is a lot more to it than I’m aware of, but I think there are people working hard to change the system into something that works. I think the biggest advantages that people with money have, aside from the money itself, is access to education, and access to the people and ideas who made the big money.
    If you have the money and you want to go into a certain field of work, you just find a training program, go sign up for it, and off you go. People without money have to somehow find a way to make their education happen. I like that the Nebraska cash assistance requirements offer an opportunity for education.
    We all have to think beyond our situations, no matter if we’ve been on welfare or not…and work toward ideas and systems that benefit people instead of hinder them.

13. Shaun Connell said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Nicholas,

    I am a worker too.

    I have worker friends. A friend of mine worked his rear off for years. He established his own business with no money down. He simply cleans out cars and makes a figure at over 500 per working day at that job.

    You also say that there are two kinds of justice; “BOURGEOIS justice” and “PROLETARIAN justice”. I find that argument to be, well, literally … offensive. Justice is justice. There is no such thing as “rich justice” and “poor justice”. That’s just philosophical hogwash.

    That said, Nicholas, I have no doubt that you will never be well-off. Such “I have no say in the business! ah!” mindsets are destructive. I do know that I will be well off. I know that for two reasons:

    1. I’m not afraid of work. At all. I enjoy it. I enjoy “taking orders” from my boss, and I respect him for his position. But I’ll also do a better job than he is, meaning I’ll get a promotion. That’s how business works. You be an asset to the company and they will repay you. In other words, good things happen to good people. Work hard and it will pay off.

    2. I’m not afraid to think. I’ll constantly look for niche markets that I can capitalize on. I’m already on my way of becoming completely financially independent right now, and I’m still in high school. Check out my website that discusses the issue of Work at Home.

    As far as big business cheating their way to the top, the fact is that that is an outrageous minority, and it doesn’t happen before long. When the people get whiff of the cheating or what not, the business is marked.

    I think you missed my “commie” point. I was using it as a slang, not as some deep economic representation. I have read Marx. I also have read Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, and literally hundreds of essays by economist after economist. My research has shown me that there’s a reason America is the most prosperous nation on earth. There’s a reason our income mobility rate is so high.

    Freedom works.

14. One objection said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    You’re stupid as shit.

15. Two objections said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    Look at the countries with total economic freedom. Most of Africa, Brazil, India, and Pakistan all have some of the most free-market economies in the world.

    They also have great resources and dedicated, hard-working people.

    Compare this to sweden. A very (economically) restrictive, incredibly high tax state. As socialist as a western nation gets, they have high taxes on anything ranging from beer to petrol.

    Now, wait, let’s compare the living standards.

    Wake up, retards. No first world nation was ever free-market capitalist, and no first world nation ever will be. It’s economic suicide. Get a fucking grip, you pro-capitalist jerks are more utopian than hard-core marxists.

16. Shaun Connell said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    Two Objections,

    India

    The economy of India was restrictive until the early 90s. Now it’s of a more free market approach. The economy is the fastest growing economy in the world. Seriously. Just … read the wikipedia article on it.

    First World Nation

    You said that no first world nation was ever free-market. I agree. Complete freedom is never going to be had. But those that are more free find more growth and productivity than their counter-parts.

    Oh. And, uh. Check out the Wiki article on remote country in North America called “The United States of America”. You’ll find that they have had some interesting experiences with “Freer markets”.

17. That guy said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm

    This is debatable…

    I think capitalism is a good system. Just that today’s capitalism needs a nudge in the right direction. That way we can avoid the more corrupt form of capitalism which is fascism.

    6) i think big business is good, but only if they are a responsible. Look at wal-mart. they are a big business but they do little to take care of their employees. if they where responsible they would give them better wages. Like a living wage, not a crappy 7 buck an hour wage. They wouldn’t outsource jobs to externalize the cost to keep more profits them selves. Unlike google, which is a very respectible company which gives everyone high wages. Sadly, their aren’t many google like companies around. So government has to step in and make sure we the people are not being exploited.

    5) I like small business too! We need to do all we can to help smaller businesses. We need to pass good legislation that protects them. We should also promote union growth to help make sure we can secure a good future with small businesses. We should also subsidies them more often then big business. Wal-mart makes billions a year no problem. We don’t need to give them subsides, however the mom and pop shops will need them a little more.

    4) I like rich people too. But ya have to admit, with all that power, its got to warrant some responsibility. Like our president, he has a lot of power, but it comes with a lot of responsibility too. I have nothing against them, I just feel that if I had a billion dollars, I would take the same stance as Warren Buffet. Give us a little more responsibility because we do deserve it. He was right too. That much money gives a lot of power. It does dictate life.

    3) I like poor people too. This is why I am liberal. You see its not if a family signs up for welfare, its if they stay on it. here is a little quote I pulled from this site.
    http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020640046/
    ____________________________________________________________
    “In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a reform measure intended to “end welfare as we know it.” The act replaced AFDC with a program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), a system that grants states a set amount of funds to distribute to the poor as well as more authority in determining welfare eligibility. In addition, most adult welfare recipients are now required to find jobs within two years after the beginning of their case, and they are limited to a maximum of five years of assistance in their lifetimes.”
    _________________________________________________________________

    You see as long as we are responsible about helping people. We can teach them to become responsible. I think government has the right idea, just needs to be refined so we can pass good legislation to get the poor out of the poor class and into middle class. You see, their is a reason why they are poor in the first place. I feel that either the rich need to sacrifice some of their income in order to help those that work for them. Lets be honest, Wal-mart has enough money to give everyone a living wage, which i think is something like 16 bucks an hour now. they don’t though because they choose to not be responsible. so this forces governemnt to come in and regulate things. some one has to be responsible, and if not one else is willing then government will be. It’s a problem, and someone MUST be responsible.

    2) I like justice too. This is the thing though. It goes back to responsibility. If big CEO’s that rake in billions a year choose to not give people a decent wage. Then you more or less have serfdom. A class system. you don’t have capitalism. yes you are required to be responsible, but if one person with a lot of power doesn’t do their part. It can crash the system.

    1) I like money too, but I like responsibility a little more. You see, Obama and Edwards both like money. That is why they support capitalism. That is why they support responsibility. We are right now in threat of loosing capitalism in place of serfdom. If the money doesn’t exchange enough hands and just sits in one man’s bank. It will eventually loose its value. Eventually it will be worth nothing and then we move to communism. we need to keep the money moving and touching as many hands as it can so we can protect ourselves and our freedom. That and I’m a Christan. I have deep seated beliefs that God will judge when we all die one day. Our actions here and now will effect that. If we choose greed over life, we will be punished for it. We can’t take it with us, so why let it damn us?

18. Tacitus said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    What a pathetic bunch of navel gazers. What you delude yourselves into believing is Smithian Capitalism (Praise His Mighty Name!) is end-game Corporate Socialism. i don’t expect you to understand this, as you would need a high powered telescope to look down on the ivory towers you sneer at from the towers you have built, but someday…sadly soon.

19. Shaun Connell said,

    March 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    That guy, thanks for the comment. Unfortunately, most of the “dissent” so far has simply been personal attacks, so I appreciate a more reasonable attempt at discussing the issue.

    1.) First, the minimum wage actually hurts the poor by increasing unemployment. The companies don’t shave money out of profit — they shave money out of increased efficiency, which is a fancy way of saying that they are forced by law to fire individuals.

    Ironically, a law passed with the purpose of helping the poor ends up harming them. I wrote a bit about the issue at my other website in an article entitled “The Minimum Wage Myth“. I won’t repeat the same arguments here.

    2.) Small business doesn’t need “protection” in the sense that we make it harder to be big. That doesn’t make sense. As a matter of fact, most of our restrictions for /big business/ hits the whole industry, including small business. I have personal experience to back this up.

    I actually work (for ten cents above minimum wage! ;-p) at a small business — a radio station. It’s a small operation in competition with literally multi-million-dollar establishments. But we have no protection.

    We also don’t need it. We do our job better, work harder, and work smarter. It would be insulting to us to suggest that we need to be “protected” with legal force. We’re doing just fine on our own. =)

    That’s one of my favorite parts of economic freedom — it lets people do whatever they can accomplish. It gets restriction and government out of our way so we can achieve.

    3.) I couldn’t agree more with the reform. We have to gradually wean ourselves off of welfare or we won’t be able to do it at all. That reform was certainly a step in the right direction. I’m glad we can agree on this.

    2.) I’m going to say something that is going to sound simply horrible, so I’ll talk about myself in the argument:

    I should not be paid more than I currently make. I’m not worth it to the company. However, the CEO is certainly worth it. The CEO of a company is so incredibly important, it’s simply impossible to over-emphasize it. Without CEOs, our nation collapses.

    Let me emphasize that: the CEO of our company is more important than me. He’s more important than his sales staff. He’s an incredibly able man with great skiill. He’s the CEO because of incredible skills that he has that no one else on the business force has. He’s essential to the success of the business, and, consequently, he’s essential to the success of the workers.

    He’s not overpaid because he receives thousands of times more than me — I understand the reasoning. And I buy it. My job isn’t essential. Anyone could do what I do. But his job is. And few could do what he does. Considering this, it’s only right that he is rewarded for his contribution — anything less would be unjust pay.

    Also, note that it isn’t a waste to pay him so much. He is, in turn, investing, spending, etc. Rich people are the creators of the economy, meaning that it’s them that keeps wall-street and the like going. Without the super-rich, the poor wouldn’t have the opportunity to climb up.

    Also, we just found out that the income-mobility is absolutely wonderful in America. That means that the poor don’t have to be poor. Our freedom allows them to establish a business (I work for minimum wage, yet I’m establishing one right now myself — the Internet has revolutionized income potential), meaning that they can succeed if they just want to.

    1.) Rich people don’t just sit on their money. Just look at the billionaires of the world — they constantly spend and invest. It’s politically incorrect but true — the rich are the oil of the engine of the world. They aren’t leaches — they are the exact opposite.

20. Advocate said,

    March 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 am

    Several of your points are just plain naive.

    “Every restriction for big business ends up trickling down and hurting their workers, either through fewer pay upgrades or through laying people off to increase efficiency. Restricting big business is restricting the little guy.”

    There is a stated reason for each “restrictive policy” and those reasons are always good even if the method of carrying them out is not. However. If you know ANYTHING about big business you know that when they have hard times, it trickles down, when they have good times, it trickles down a lot more slowly. Big business benefits, in the final balance, the rich, not the poor, the owners, not the people, the stock-holders, NOT the workers or the customers. The customers only benefit to the extent that the owners benefit. If the owners don’t, there’s no WAY the “little people” do. But if the owners DO, the little people MIGHT. Trickle-down doesn’t work. It lets the shit trickle-down fast and the benefits get locked up as much as possible.

    “Oh. And big business is actually good. Why? Because they became

21. Shaun Connell said,

    March 23rd, 2008 at 1:25 am

    The more I discuss the issue, the more … interesting it becomes. I have found an uncanny attitude among those who whine at capitalism. They always talk about being given something. They want their SHARE of money. Someone should GIVE them a job.

    Leaches.

    when they have good times, it trickles down a lot more slowly.

    Not true. The money goes somewhere. Even when in a big bank account it impacts the rest of the people. Investments make the world go around. Socialist/anti-capitalist/whatever economics ignore this point, which is simply absurd to ignore.

    That

22. Brian said,

    March 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am

    Advocate:
    

    “Capitalism causes poverty. Take a look at any given socialist country and take a look at any given capitalist country. which has the most poverty? There is no unemployment caused by restrictions on the rich etc.”

    Ok… fine. Cuba and the US. The USSR and Hong Kong. The capitalist side and the socialist side of Germany after WW@. Are you sure you want to make this comparison? Face facts, man! Socialism stinks!

    If you really are interested in evidence, then you might consider reading In defense of Global Capitalism.

    >Brian

23. Alex said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am

    Shaun seems to have been strongly influenced by Milton Friedman (a nobel prize winning economist). I completely agree. My parents are from Russia (I was actually born there too, but only lived there a year). We moved just as some freedom started showing up, when we went back and visited a couple years ago, we found that almost all of my fathers friends were rich. Why is this? Because my dad went to a magnet school. One guy manages everything that runs on electricity in the 9 massive moving bridges in St. Petersburg, another got involved with the stock market from the start, a third made his money in real estate. There are only three things common to these people, they started out poor, they ended up rich, and they are damn smart. Freedom is good.

24. black said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am

    you were obviously born and raised privileged. You have no regard at all for the millions that need government help. stupid.

25. econonomist said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Several point::
    You’re assuming no market failures, complete markets, ownership of all factors of production and no monopoly/monopsony power. The economy will fail to achieve a parato-efficient equilibrium in the presence of such factors. While there exists no lump sum tax so factor ownership cannot be redistributed without warping the market, policies of second best take advantage of the general opinion of the public on the importance of equality to judge the trade off. SWFs can be used to judge how important equality is. It’s a known fact for example that in Europe equality is perceived as much more important than in the states (and it does hold an intrinsic utility in itself). Government intervention is needed to fix market failures and to ensure equality, an end in itself.

    While equality being good in itself may not hold as an argument in the US, there is philosophical basis for govt intervention. Governments are faced with a balance, between allowing wealth to be passed on from generation to generation, and between giving an equal start to everyone. Giving an equal start is important due to poverty traps. A university education for example in the US costs around $60000 for example. There is no way you can argue against the idea that a child born into a relatively poor family will be much less likely too go and get a higher level of education, therefore a better job, and therefore the circle of poverty will continue. A more fomal proof can be derived from the falling marginal utility of money and risk aversion. Therefore while the trade off still exists, the government has a responsibility to intervene, reduce the physical cost of poverty by reducing income spread through redistribution, and increase income mobility.

    and lastly:
    “People, and Americans especially are an especially giving group of people. When they are secure and earning a good living, they give money and time very liberally. It isn

26. Dave Eaton said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

    Oh and the US is not generous.

    Individual US citizens are extremely generous.

    Some people aren’t cut out for having to think and work for themselves. Casting blame and tearing things down is easier than thinking and producing things that people want. There is no doubt that bad examples abound in business. There are generally dozens of stories a year about corporate malfeasance. Yet in 2003, there were over 22 million firms in the US. Clearly, the vast majority are doing business by producing or doing something that people value, making us all better off. Enron was bad. It affected a lot of people. But it is a drop in the bucket, a drop in the ocean.

    Marxism is an echo of monarchy- the idea that some unbreachable class and status barrier separates the haves from the have-nots. It is an incredibly seductive illusion, because it exonerates those who are not willing to work by blaming class and the system. But it isn’t true in the US. Hard work is, by definition, hard, and so most people will choose not to do it to make something for themselves. But it is available.

27. James said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    Being a believer in sociaism, I disagree with most of what you said – the corporate machine is my enemy as are people like you. Just my opinion.

    But… none of this makes a tiny little bit of difference until the general public (not just Americans) wake up and realise what’s going on. Unfortunately for the thought criminals like us, people won’t wake up. They think what they see is what should be seen, they think what they see is the truth because they’re told exactly that. Religion and the media, being the two most easily accessible… how to put this… institutions? That’ll do… are the most commonly used outlets for the capitalist government’s bullshit. How people can be so stupid as to believe it is beyond me.

    I have no doubt that capitalism as a form of government will be exposed as being a simple basis for corporate and governmental corruption and domination, but that will be when people like you stop believing in such a backward and overall evil system. Unfortunately, I don’t think people will wake up in my lifetime…

    You know it’s true – I know it’s true.

28. Dave Eaton said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    James-

    Socialism is not all sunshine and puppies, mate. It tends to become corrupt and domineering, too. And it is a hell of a lot harder to get rid of than a corporation, because governments, even relatively good ones, operate outside the law.

    I don’t have to ‘believe in’ capitalism. Warts and all, I can see that it works. And that socialism and central planning are, indeed, a road to serfdom. Capitalism cannot force anyone to work for anyone else. Not so socialism.

29. Sil said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:08 pm

    Wow. This is a seriously enlightening discussion. I happen to notice a couple of small things:

    The pro-capitalists are citing facts, and backing up their arguments, and generally seem well more “in-the-know”.

    The pro-socialists are trying to give facts, but they tend to be word-of-mouth and not necessarily backed up by any real truth. They are very passionate, however. Lots of sniping and harshness, though.

30. Ben Morrow said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

    On Free Markets:

    All free market models seem to have assumptions that contradict or at best generalise the observable reality. Of those who promote free markets nearly all of them believe that power imbalances extending in the worst case to monopolies make them fail at everything they are good at (at this point they are often not considered free).

    Equally many doubt the success of markets that are not close to being free at providing optimal benefit (this includes cartels and all other scenarios with imperfect/asymetric information or undue effect on price by one actor). In other words it is clear to absolutely *everyone* who writes on this that free markets will not protect the benefits of individuals sufficiently in real world conditions which at the very least include captive markets and large power imbalances. Whether the other actors are governments, charities, general/individual/community altruism or international institutions we all know we need more than just free markets.

31. Lisa Thurmond said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    AMEN TO THAT! I’m a college student and I can’t count how many times I hear anti-capital drivel. Not just from liberal ex-hippy nutty professors but from my own sorority sisters! I can’t emphasize it enough: REAL FREEDOM is built on private property.

32. Flashpoint » Blog Archive » Capitalism is good said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    [...] Here’s a great explanation about why capitalism is good for us all – well, those of us who aren’t losers.

33. william simpson said,

    March 26th, 2008 at 10:27 pm

    I agree that FCC regulations hurt. Have you ever read an author by the name of John Rawls. He’ll blow your mind with what he has to say about justice. Here’s a good place to read about a summary. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#JusFaiJusWitLibSoc.

34. Mike said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 1:27 am

    The overarching pitfall of this discussion seems to be that of a false dichotomy. If anyone here thinks that the real world answers are binary (i.e. capitalism and socialism), then those people need to rethink what they base their opinions on, and why they choose a ‘camp’ in such discussions.

    Choices for action don’t have to involve a flag, an interest group, any particular political party, or an “-ism” of any kind. In fact, i might even go out on a limb and say that we don’t even need hyperbole to get justice in the world!

    At the same time, we do have the option of taking a look at the history of the world and thinking about the endless series of manipulation that have come from all sectors of society, be they government, business, academic, individual, or any other.

    If any “justice” is too be had that is both achievable and consistent with this article’s leanings, i think that it is by the earnest limiting of all kinds of power concentrations — those of government, those of academia and other institutions, and even, I dare say, those of the mythologically incorruptible business leader.

35. Ben Morrow said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 4:00 am

    I agree with Mike on the previous comment. You can’t really blame people for being in camps when that’s the way politics splits down currently with little room for abridging flip floppers like you or I.

36. mehmet said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Socialism is not all sunshine and puppies, mate. It tends to become corrupt and domineering, too. And it is a hell of a lot harder to get rid of than a corporation, because governments, even relatively good ones, operate outside the law.

    I don

37. Dan Sherwood said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Alas, if only any of that were true.

    Corporations are, as per their legal mandate by way of their charter, profit making machines for their shareholders. As such, they are required by conflicting laws to break the law if it is profitable to do so. All decisions come down to profits in the corporate world.
    So, suppose you have a house in a valley and a coal mining company is doing mountain top removal mining. If they should happen to knock a boulder into your house (which has and does occur with alarming frequency in WV and KY), its no big deal so long as it was cheaper to pay you off than to be careful. Corporations have tremendous power, legal standing as a human being (look that up and be scared), and no morals, despite what all the lovely PR campaigns might have succeeded in making you think.

    So, tell me again, oh Uncle Tom of corporate America, that capitalism is a great thing. You can either be a fool or a liar with that kind of logic. Take your pick.

    p.s. If you doubt me, read “the corporation” by Joel Bakan and you can fact check for yourself.

38. Mason said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 11:18 am

    “First I defined capitalism as being a simple idea. It

39. Jayson said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    A couple of questions…

    My parents who both work can’t afford to send me to college. How would I be able to get an education without state welfare? Now someone’s gonna say “what about private scholarships?” I am aware they exist, I even have a laughably small one. All I’m saying is there would be far fewer educated people in America if there was not some limited social welfare.

40. James said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Capitalism is a system founded on money and based around the needs of the rich and the rich only. If you’re born into a rich family, or are one of the tiny percentage who get a lucky break and end up rich, then you’re fine – capitalism is great.

    But if you’re one of the normal people in this world, what chance do you have?

    America has formed a way of life for its’ citizens which can only lead to more of a gulf between the rich, the middle class, and the poor. The rich are getting richer – the poor are getting poorer. The fact is – corporations, the media and religious institutions dominate America. And who controls these? The government.

    I’m not saying a socialist government would be invulnerable to any sort of corruption etc, but it would go a long way to stopping the current lies and, let’s face it, propaganda being spread by the current government. I point you towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Iran. Do you honestly believe everything you’re told about events in these countries? And if you don’t, why are you still supporting your government and it’s system?

41. hipmonkey said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    The great experiment in capitalism is failing, and when it falls you might realize that we could have done thing just a little bit differently. Nothing as selfish as pure capitalism can last forever. I mean, look around!!!

42. J.P. Karvatski said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    No direct quotes or statements here, just a bit of sorrow with this argument’s amounting pressure on itself with no noticeable attempts to find some kind of middle ground.

    The question I would like to propose is, ‘Is there a middle ground?’ What I’ve read (and I’ve read each of these arguments, and I hope Shaun Connell has as well) so far has been a lot of generalizations and personal statements that don’t really have much to back them up. “I know these people…” or “I can name this many situations…” People, the world is far too diversified for us to be making this many broad statements without much substantial fact.

    I outright refuse to state any specific political view of my own here and now, only that I hope to maintain my wishes for ‘democratic’ countries such as Canada and America, which is this: Priority. Money is important, yes, I suppose, but as it stands, a large number of our money is fake and inflated and in a sorry state. Goods don’t seem to be equally traded for as much as they used to be in the 1950s. Capitalism is experiencing its own share of falsities and difficulties, but so has socialist countries, as a poverty is undoubtedly a commonplace problem.
    I don’t know. Even by stating this right now, I will surely be shot down by many of you.

    But back to what I was saying before: Equality, I believe, is the most important thing for a country to achieve. Utopia is probably an unrealistic goal, for humans will always have conflict in their lives, but this doesn’t stop striving towards it. After this comes the priorities of education and health care, basically the mental and physical welfare of everyone who resides in X Country.
    My opinion here is that current systems seem to be experiencing a lot of difficulties, captialism, socialism, etc. and there barely seems to be an attempt at a synthesis between systems. This argument should be PROACTIVE. There are enough slung insults of ‘naive!’ and ‘liar!’ in these arguments that I see the general opinion is childish and biased. I hate to be a hippie about it all, but can’t we just try and calmly admit to our preferences’ pros and cons and strive towards discovering a common ground?

    Perhaps I am asking too much of this world…

43. franki said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    capitalism is the only system we have that could respond fast enough to changes in the market; central planning takes too long and causes problems but because capitalism is self-correcting (in the supply and demand matching sense) it does not have this problem.

    however, capitalism is not an ethical theory. You in America tried Reaganomics, and the wealth did not ‘trickle down’ as was promised. And you can’t tell me that all of those people working two jobs to keep house and home together are lazy and don’t deserve the money. Here in the UK, we had Thatcher, who broke the Trades Unions who were arguably too strong, and then kept our economy ticking over by cutting and cutting and cutting away at our welfare system to sustain a boom caused by an increase in the number of women staying at work and a housing market stimulated by double-income mortgages. Esssentially she was chopping up the furniture to keep the fire going.

    If you want workers to work hard, they have to be healthy, feel secure, and able to concentrate on their jobs. If healthcare is free at the point of service, they will be healthy (generally speaking). if they are payed a living wage they will have somewhere to live and enough to eat, and will feel financially secure. if they know they can afford to pay their childminder, know that they will be able to send their kids to uni, and don’t have to worry about mortgage arrears, they will be able to concentrate on their jobs. thus the best way to ensure productivity is to pay workers a wage far enough to poverty line to ensure a good standard of living. oh, and this will allow them to buy more consumer goods and further stimulate the economy.

    when our Labour government introduced the minimum wage in Britain, unemployment actually fell, not rose. wow, that’s a shocker! give consumers more money and it will create more jobs? never saw that one coming…

44. franki said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    correction: should have been ‘far enough above the poverty line to ensure a good standard of living.’
    sorry

45. ohmy said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pm

    so much bullshit in one article. not a single argument just a series of “i like i like”…

46. Jason said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    J.P., I agree with your call for a middle ground. Shaun, when you get out in the real world you will discover that although theoretically abolishing the minimum wage would increase efficiency and employment slightly, it is more worthwhile to the common good to create a “floor” under which able-bodied workers cannot fall. You will find in time that you need to accept the argument that people who are born richer have more opportunities than those who are not, and that even in the famous Horatio Alger “rags to riches” novels, people rose with hard work AND help from others.

    However, do not take this the wrong way. I align myself most closely with libertarian ideals, but not to the point of complete lack of government intervention. I think that most of us here can agree that the government mucks around in areas where it does not belong, and this does not provide to the benefit of its citizens. The fact that our tax dollars fund billions of dollars in pork spending, a war on drugs and prisons filled with the victims of this “war,” and an actual war occupying a country who in no way provoked us, is a breach of accountability and a result of a government that has been given too much power and now abuses it to hold on to their power.

    While it is true that those with money are more likely able to evade the law, this mostly occurs in corrupt capitalist nations such as Russia rather than in those such as the US where people are tried before a jury of their peers.

    Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that there is no absolute truth, although you can continue to battle it out (although I can guarantee you no one will win). Socialists (if in the marxist-leninist sense), the central planning model to this point has not been shown to be very successful in any country and has led to authoritarianism rather than the proletarian utopia you hoped for. Communists, I have read Marx’s Manifesto and I’m sure that you noticed as well as I that although he gives a nice analysis of the class conflict, he does not explain what happens after the revolution, especially the incentive system, leading one to believe this is some sort of anarchist utopia where human nature does not exist and workers work simply because they want to. Hardcore capitalists, while the idea works excellently theoretically and on a small scale, large corporations use their leverage to lobby congress to stay in power and never actually allow competition to take place (look at the Pharmaceutical or large Farmers industry if you don’t believe me).

47. Rik said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Capitalism, like any tool (in this case, a tool for generating wealth) has two sharp edges. One edge slices the way of production and providing jobs, etc. The other side is greed. Like another defining tool – the gun – it depends on who is wielding said tool. The horrible fact is that while most people who own guns don’t go around shooting people, there is a 5% factor of nutjobs who do. Same with business. Greed infected some people, and the workers and everyone else be damned. This is more prevalent in public companies. It is the stock speculators who spur greed, which infects the system – not the concept of the free market itself. There are people who are generating wealth by doing nothing. This is spurious at best – downright villainous at its worst. I believe in capitalism, but the purity of the open market – and principles of honesty and integrity in businesses of any size – are overwhelmed by the complex mechanisms of greed and stock speculation. We are intimately tied to the system of greed so, we either change en masse… or get used to more and more of the same. OR, you can choose, as a free individual – to be part of the solution and carry your integrity with you into all your dealings – business and otherwise. That might also be infectious. Money isn’t bad. Insane greed is. Do I really need $40 billion? I’d settle for working my butt off for 10 million. In fact, that’s what I’m doing, so see ya later…

48. Ed LaTourette said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    I will keep this simple:

    The capitalist leader is willing to try to succeed in a free market system, where the best product/service/idea is rewarded by virtue of its successes in a continuous fair and open competition. This competition usually involves a personal investment on the part of the capitalist, whether it be time or money, usually lots of both.

    The government leader wants to succeed in a system where he only has to succeed once in a great while, in a rigged system. He can sell his influence to the private group that offers him the greatest reward (i.e., the most votes) to keep himself at the top of the market, and spend the rest of his time promoting pet projects that require no feedback from an actual market. This option typically involves NO personal investment on the part of the government “leader”.

    Gee; which one do you think is easier, or lends itself to greater corruption?

    If you don’t understand any of this, from either side, drop me a line. I’ll be happy to explain it to you at length.

49. realitycheck said,

    March 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Your big business sunglasses are coke bottle thick and blood red, not rose colored. Go back between the depression and the mid fifties and I would agree with you. At this point in time, you are just a ditto head parroting faux news, with enough tidbits of stuff everyone agrees on to cover. Your simple arguments are just that, and my poor liberal butt will kick yours in a fair business fight every time. But I don’t think a fair fight was ever brought up here…… With corporate taxes accounting for over 40% of taxes in 1946 and now accounting for less than 10%, wow, no corporate welfare here huh…. Keep telling people lies and they will eventually believe it – (paraphrased from Herman Goebbels, 3rd Reich propaganda minister)

50. Cody said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am

    “Your simple arguments are just that, and my poor liberal butt will kick yours in a fair business fight every time.”

    Ah, are you implying simple argument=stupid argument? Or have I misinterpreted what you are saying?

51. Gabriel said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am

    Jason got it pretty good. Your views of capitalism are wildly oversimplified. I too count myself as a capitalist, but one who recognizes the importance of regulation. A loosening of regulation is one of the primary causes of the lending crisis we are now in. An increase in regulation is what led us out of the Great Depression.

    There is a balance, and the idea that big business is necessarily a good thing is deeply flawed as Jason and others pointed out. Without regulation, big business can control the market, stifling competition and driving consumer opinion. Money can be used to control opinion not only through lobbying but through advertising. You seem to have met a lot of people, so you should know that not everyone is an intelligent, perfectly rational being capable of making good decisions for themselves.

    As for the poor, it is flat out incorrect to say that wealth depends on how hard you work. Success in a society like ours is all about opportunity, and there is very little opportunity in poor communities. Why? Because there is no money in poor communities and therefore, little opportunity for work or education. Businesses cannot make money in areas where there is no money! Very simple supply/demand economics. Therefore, intervention of some kind is neccesary

52. Johnny said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 5:39 am

    I like money too!!! I don’t like all aspects of capitalism
    Lets take Big business, how many would not exist if not for the government and government building stuff they don’t need just to keep people working, I ask is that capitalism, no its a pretend capitalism, why because its socialism masked as capitalism.
    I say free market, let the people serving you make the most money, like a waiter at a small dinner in rural America making $2.16 an hour plus $30.00 a night in tips, why not pay the waiter $100,000.00 a year and the owner make the least amount after all its the worker making it happen, but get the least.
    We know money is a separator between classes of people, we can accomplish all the stuff we do in our world without money, because the objective is for people to do what other vision, so yes as long as the majority gets up and go to work any system can work.
    But capitalism is a separator classes, in other words, look what you can have if you go to work, new house, car, family, food, as long as you work and pay cash, oh your job laid you off and you can’t find another to PAY, to bad dude you loose. The dude says you promised if I worked hard I could have this stuff, you never said anything about what happens when there are no jobs to feed on. Dude to bad you should have known better after all your a grown man with a wife and kids, why did you have kids you can’t support. Dude says know what I think I just jump off the bridge. Capitalism no dude don’t do that, you never know you might find a job next year and then in time you can get your stuff back, in the mean time eat out of garbage cans.
    Capitalism is only a system an illusion that we have . But in reaility we only have as long as there is work.

53. Amber said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 9:27 am

    Just remember:
    If your gov’t is big enough to give you something, then they are big enough to take things away.

    We are losing control of “our” gov’t. It isn’t “ours” anymore.

    I do have to say that I really do like the points you’ve made. Thank you.

54. Jonathon Nierengarten said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    Well said.

55. cgad said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 7:37 pm

    you’re a fucking idiot. corporate heads can make decisions regardless of the individuals involved, just to make another buck.

    i like people, not money. I like animals too, and plants, and food without cemicals or hormones, not money.

56. brian said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 8:17 pm

    no… capitalism DOESN’T allow everyone to “UNLEASH THEIR MINDS”… it allows a select few to take control and make big decisions that invade on our individual rights and freedoms and negatively affect us and our world…

    you consider that justice?

57. Russell said,

    March 28th, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Nick the commie, I do not need to read Marx, all I have to do is look at nations that were influenced by his philosophy, like Soviet Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. The fact that every one was an economic catastrophe is all I need to know about Communism.

    Jesus said “by their fruits shall ye know them…”

58. Steve Summers said,

    March 30th, 2008 at 5:53 am

    There are a lot of things here that bring up good points. However choosing to pick one way of life can hinder you from creating a positive effect on another way of life.

    There cannot be good without evil. Becuase its the evil that defines the difference in what it is good.

    I run a small business myself (www.area51solutions.com) and i care about the economy and worry about the linger of restrictions and fees.

    The world does need to be open to advancement. But for Major company monopolies, there has to be some level of balance to how much control they can have over a market. If they didnt Comcast would run the world lol and smaller businesses would run out of business.

59. Brian said,

    March 31st, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    I hope you don’t take offense at this. Then again, I really don’t care if you do. Just recognize it as what it is and (try to) separate yourself from special interests to examine this claim:

    If a small business can’t keep up, it should go out of business. If a big business can’t keep up, it should go out of business. Savvy?

    Stop defending “small businesses” just because they’re “small businesses.”

    Now, as for monopolies, under a true free market system, a monopoly can only survive as long as costumers like to buy from it. The moment it stops, another company can open shop and take their costumers.

    Can’t you socialists get it? Capitalism MAKES people work for /other’s/ interests because that’s the only way they can get money.

    >Brian

60. Fezile said,

    April 3rd, 2008 at 7:05 am

    Dear sir/madam,

    I am experiencing financial problems right now, ever since I lost my job I am struggling to make ends meet. I am the bread winner at home and there is no one else working. We are renting a flat which cost us R3 900.00 per month and I am two months behind with the rent and the owner is fuming at me, he does not want to listen to what I am telling him. I do understand his concern but I do not have any money at the moment. Is there any financial assistance which your department can provide in order to save us in this situation? Any kind of help and referrals to relevant institutions or NGO’s which can assist us financially will be highly appreciated and I am counting on you for help.

    My contact number is: 0722415796 in case you need to talk to me. Thanking you in advance for your understanding.

    Regards,
    Fezile Yebe (Mr)

61. David Personius said,

    April 3rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    wow, Shaun. This post has set a record for the number of comments you’ve had on one post. See you at Regionals.
    I like capitalism too. What was the picture of the dead squirell all about?
    David

62. Dissenter said,

    April 17th, 2008 at 8:44 am

    I also think that the Austrian concept of implicit competition is relevant. No matter how much of a market a business controls, so long as no barrier to entry exists it faces the threat of competition, even if the competition does not yet exist, and thus still faces all the pressures of competition.

    Furthermore, let us remember that there is always competition between different goods. Only one business may truly be called a monopoly, in the antitrust sense: a business that controls the entire market. And only one such business exists: government. Government is the only monopoly, and thus all those who decry the evils of monopoly must first abolish the original and ultimate monopoly: government.

63. matt said,

    July 13th, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    why dont you just live your life and shut the fuck up everything you say is gibberish why must you live by a set of rules and money, your stupid belief is why there is so much fucked up shit on this planet. sadly our whole life is based on this agenda: being born, learning in the most fucked educational system, graduate, enter the world of work, get married, have children, most likely divorce, keep working, then retire, and die. Then your children go through the same bullshit. your stupid belief is the cause of sweatshops, poor health care and school system, big box retailers, more funding for police and military services and anti immigration laws, and so much more shit and because the united states is a capitalist government the whole world is influenced by it. SO FUCK YOU AND ALL YOU STUPID FUCKIN CAPITALIST PIGS!!!!!

64. John Steinsvold said,

    August 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm

    An Alternative to Capitalism?

    The following link, takes you to a “utopian” article, entitled “Home of the Brave?” which I wrote and appeared in the American Daily which is published in Phoenix, Arizona on March 14, 2006.
    http://www.americandaily.com/article/12389

    John Steinsvold

65. Biff said,

    November 28th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Ok but why do you call them “Washington Elites” that are getting in the way of capitalism when they are “Capitalists?”

    They might be getting in your or my way but they are not getting in the way of Capitalism.

    If they where getting in the way large multi-nationals would not have lobbyists courting them.

66. goebbels said,

    November 29th, 2008 at 1:08 am

    This little statement of little headed capitalists shows it all;

    “Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy.”

    How detacted from reality you are…

67. Mark said,

    December 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Young teen boys are always fascinated by Ayn Rand. Don’t worry, in many years you’ll grow up. You’ll become an emotionally mature adult (with some luck), and you’ll see what living is really about. For right now, your illusion comforts you. That’s ok, that’s a young man’s world.

68. Jinky Williams said,

    December 4th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Quite an interesting read, there. Especially the comments. Shaun, I commend you for keeping your cool and choosing your battles.

    Some of the posts here are just people trying to rile you up or don’t keep their passion in check and end up looking foolish.

    @Mark, get off your condescending high horse.

69. the small axe said,

    December 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am

    “Free Market Capitalism” is the ability of a boss to hire goons with guns to block, maim, and kill workers who organize for a living wage and fair working conditions, as is the history of union organizing in coal mining, textile workers, and sweatshops in the capitalist-exploited third world today. Anti-Capitalism is workers defining their own conditions, sharing the profits of their labor collectively, and treating their local environment with care, unlike a disconnected capitalist who treats it as a dump. Anti-Capitalism comes in shades other than red, and many anti-capitalists are no fans of power concentrated in the corrupt, ineffective and de-contextualized beuracracies of socialist or communist nations. I argue for an economic reality that reflects the human propensity for collective cooperation and sharing of the spoils of hard labor.
    Another note, “big business” cannot exist without friends in high places to look the other way, or to write the tax code one day and sit on the board of directors the next day. Without a government to drop bombs on organizing workers (battle of blair mountain, coal mining wars), the drive of the small guy to work in livable conditions and earn a wage that truly reflects her labor is the defining law on which Economy is built. We dont need legislative action, we need direct action legalized.
    Without regulators writing rules that favor large utilities, we would see thousands of small, cooperatively owned power stations that do not pollute their own backyards.
    Ecology teaches us that communities of small, diverse, locally adapted collectives of organisms is what is most sustainable, and what not only thrives but gives back to and builds up, or makes healthier its surroundings. In the end run, evolution will show that an economic mode which defiles its environment in favor of more and more profit for fewer and fewer people will collapse in on itself. A truly free market is one in which the modes of production are free and collectively owned.

70. I build powerplants said,

    December 15th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    WHOOOOO there dogie!!!!!
    Free men, in a society which our founding father envisioned, would “bare arms” against any kind of employer or army who would attack them.
    That being said.. Who are they to tell the employer what he will pay? Are they dumb enough to stay and work for unsafe conditions? This is the modern world. We have OSHA and MSHA and the dreaded Insurance company REQUIRING a safe work environment.
    I see you were talking about third world countries.
    Do you know that in some parts of Mexico, a man making one dollar a day can retire in 10 years? He is well paid for his environment. I see Mexican men working in construction with dreams of saving 100 thousand dollars so he can go home and buy a large ranch and hire people to tend his fences while he sits in luxury.

    Anti Capitalism is communism or at best, socialism.
    With either, you take the incentive to be the best out of the equasion (ms) and “good enough” becomes the norm. There is no reason to excell because it will not help you live better nor will it gain you any respect. If you work harder, it just allows someone else to do less, as it it “good enough”. And the society continues on, “good enough”.
    Regarding the small utilities… tell me someone who is looking for investors…. oh yeah.. I expect a profit before the employees are “shared with”. They get paid what the board tells them or they get a job somewhere else.

71. Hyperion said,

    December 15th, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Just a quick thought, your pure capitalistic society is most feared by the corporations you so admire. Every government regulation they help put in place is a barrier to entry for future competition. Read Michael Porter’s Competitive Strategy. Companies seek a competitive advantage, and they get it through regulations, patents, and anything else that can’t be duplicated or is too expensive to be duplicated by outside parties. Those FCC regulations you hate, also provide a high barrier to your potential competition. You need to take some basic business or finance courses. The regulation is there for a very good reason, because the corporations want it there.

72. Brenda Gonzalez said,

    December 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    Dude you really are stupid. I agree with things some people have said here. #1 do you live in America? If so you should know of all the problems corporations pose to our health, financial well-being, the list goes on. And it’s not the “liberal” media, this is the truth. Corporations are voracious entities who only care about making more money, faster. They are entities without conscience. They will eat everyone and anything in their path. Because they are headed by people who’s only goal is to meet their position’s expectations (sales managers, CEO’s etc), they can’t act on conscience as a small business owner (who is known and watched in the community might). You’re a complete fool. THINK before you write something so short-sighted and generalized that has made so many people suffer! CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM are both too dangerous extremes that lead to the concentration of power in one entity (a few rich or a corrupt government). Extremes are never an answer, balance is!
    BTW: I’m a small biz owner too and I’m actually socially responsible, but because I can’t compete with corporate marketing $$s I get drowned out, while brainwashed fools like you continue to follow the corporate mantra that they provide us with the best, BULLSHIT! HOPE YOU DIE OF PREMATURE CANCER AND STRESS ALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CAPITALIST LIFESTYLE YOU SO BELIEVE IN!

73. lee said,

    December 24th, 2008 at 2:52 am

    You also like: that because of money our technology is progressing slowly. you also like that the big companies and rich people control the media and the poor people. Do you really think that poor people can become rich just by hardwork? they dont have the time to educate themselves. they must work all day just to survive. If you have a small business, internet and money, you are the elite of the world already, just look it up.

    Capitalism is old. Its not helping us anymore, just fucking with all the potential we have to develop our technology.

74. GOOD JOB! said,

    December 25th, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep – you are richer than 75% of the world.

    If you have money in the bank, in your wallet and spare change in a dish someplace – you are among the top 8% of the worlds wealthy.

    Capitalism forever! Because, who cares about the rest of the world, right?

75. MoneyMan said,

    January 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    The corporate leaders of American industry industry are not capitalists when the chips are down. Our financial industry is in ruins. Others are following suit. The men in Washington who fight so hard publicly against redistribution of wealth have unanimously signed the largest check that the world has ever seen. Your system does not exist and never will, because while the CEO’s and Major shareholders of these companies may have been forced to streamline their retirement, sell their second, third, or fourth home, or God help them, look for a new job, they are handed the largest welfare package in global history. These men spit at a bum, drunk and hungry in the street, while they, drunk with power and influence, hungry for wealth, steal billions out of your back pocket.

    We should have let them fail.

    All of them.

    Their poor decisions and shortsighted thinking brought them here, to capitalist hell. Our government was never designed to be an economic entity, a money machine, or the corporate Jesus. There should be no savior for men like this. The market damned them and your defenders of capitalism finally showed where their allegiance is.

    Before you can praise pure, undiluted capitalism, you must show me an example where it has been successful. Certainly not in the United States of America.

    Capitalism and Socialism both be damned, we have NEVER seen working proof of either.

    Sincerely,
    someone who is too young to give any answers, but old enough to see that you are all very, very wrong.

76. commie bastard :p said,

    January 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy. It’s the only economic system on earth that does this. This is why it works.

    not just the lazy
    how about the disabled
    or the stupid
    people can’t help being stupid (if given a choice they’d probably all be smart businessmen)
    why punish em for that?

77. Dan Patrick said,

    January 16th, 2009 at 3:49 am

    My only objection is one that I think you’ll agree with, but that may not be clear to some of your readers. The idea that governments should leave businesses alone, regardless of size, is not a condoning of corporatism. Unfortunately corporatism, the collusion of big businesses and government, has become confused with capitalism.

    To those that say that question how the worker can ever become rich while working for a capitalist, the answer is entrepreneurship. In a free economy, anyone with a plan and modest resources can start a business. I grew up in a trailer in rural Alabama. I didn’t have new clothes or the biggest toys like other kids. We had plenty of spaghetti and hamburger helper dinners. My father worked and saved for years until he could afford to start his own small business. As a result, he now makes six figures. He has also brought jobs into his community. His “exploited” workers, now have a secure, well-paying job near their home. If not for his entrepreneurship, they would either have no job or have to move to find work elsewhere. His business provides valued products. His business creates wealth from raw resources and that wealth helps people.

78. Augustine said,

    January 18th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    I too, am in favor of capitalism. However, there’s a lot of flaws in this piece you’ve written. Welfare isn’t the reason we have poverty. It doesn’t encourage poverty, either. Econ 101 teaches us that it’s a matter of motivation, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps.

    But that’s assuming a world full of rational people, unprejudiced people (not just talking about racism/sexism here), rather than a world full of people who make decisions based on things other than Randian concepts of skill, brain, muscle, etc.

    Big business getting regulated doesn’t have to trickle down to “the little guys”, the converse logic would imply that the better a company does, the more each employee should see out of it. But I think a lot of those benefits get eaten up by people higher up the food chain, in the form of multi-million dollar bonuses and the like.

    Your economic theory feels like it’s grounded in theory rather than practice.

79. Mesolithic Man said,

    January 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am

    I prefered it when we lived in small but egalitarian bands, roaming the wilderness and hunting red-deer with our microlith headed spears, free from the shackles of any of you pretentious economic theorists and your evil hierarchical societies. It was better in the “primitive communism” of 10000-5000BP (Before Present) when everyone looked out for everyone else and everyone did their bit.

    Splitters.

80. Edward M. said,

    January 20th, 2009 at 3:55 am

    You’re a bit naive. Take some economics and some real philosophy before you say silly, unqualified stuff like freedom leads to prosperity. Tragedy of the commons? Asymmetrical information? Negative externalities? Come on…

    And the Ayn Rand stuff has to stop. She’s not a philosopher. She’s the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy.

81. Matthew Cecil said,

    February 8th, 2009 at 2:26 am

    “Socialism for the rich, and capitalism for the poor.”

    I know you may dislike, and disagree with this opinion, but more often then not corporations are the main recipients of the BENEFITS of social programs even if the and is an unknown if more money is given to the poor.

82. hipmonkey said,

    April 6th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    Your arguments for capitalism pave the way to Fascism. Capitalism exploits the poor that you love so much. The rich set policy. A good example is Big Pharmacy and the little e-cigarette. The safe e-cig is illegal because big government wants the big taxes on tobacco, which the e-cig doesn’t contain. The patch, gum and lozenges are legal because of Big Pharmacy. Manufacturing is moving overseas to exploit the poorer who will work for less, thus America has no manufacturing, leaving 51 million workers without a job. I think there’s a way to compromise and mix Socialism with Capitalism in a unique American way for the betterment of everyone. (And I won’t even get into the immoral Walmart scene).

83. Nate said,

    April 8th, 2009 at 9:58 am

    Each side looks at it’s opposition as faceless robots.

    For the socialists: I have met Warren Buffet, he is every bit as normal as you and I. Rich people are just like you, except probably smarter (no offense intended). The people who manage corporations have families, and lead normal lives. They are not all corporate raiders like Icahn who strip pension funds from business acquisitions. Imagine yourself as a manager, would you screw everyone over? That’s the general mindset of most businesspeople. Some businesses do understand that they have a responsibility. It’s not black and white. As for capitalism creating fascism? You’re crazy. There is no basis in fact there, the logic is based on no sort of reality.

    100 Years ago, most Americans were poor and lived in small rural communities with very little money. 150 years ago there was no central bank, no standardized US currency. People literally buried gold in their yard. Banks had to be responsible because if they failed they notes they issued were useless. This didn’t benefit the management or the public because they all held the money.

    Government subsidization and regulation creates moral hazard, institutions are less afraid of the effects of their actions because the risk is mitigated by the government. If the FDIC were dissolved (or the deposit insurance lessened – they don’t have enough capital to fund the deposits of a large failed bank anyway) consumers would have to be smarter about bank choices and banks would be more careful. There is no safety net. Regulation can create corruption because it eliminates responsibility.

    Further example of the effects of regulation:

    In the current governments efforts to improve lending markets, the FED has purchased securities directly from the the Treasury. This is called monetizing the national debt. Banana republics do this to support huge government spending. The result is creation of money (especially after the multiplier), inflation, devaluation of US dollar, cheaper imports, more expensive exports, which equals gigantic trade deficit and poor US credit rating abroad. Our government will be less able to borrow money. With the chinese government threatening to reduce their holding of US t-bills in their reserves, they could topple the US dollar as the international reserve currency. This is happening right now folks. The US is at serious risk of losing it’s status as a true superpower. Not because of the bubble burst in the markets (every American is partially at fault for that for borrowing more than they can afford), not because of greedy CEOs, but because of inept government. Congress is a bunch of babies, the Fed is independent, they are supposed to be the adult. The continuing crisis is a direct result of people (of any ideology) who go on gut feelings and morality rather than acting on theory and ethics. People who don’t think or even begin to understand what they are talking about.

    If you can’t explain credit default swaps to me, then stop bitching about them. You don’t know what you are talking about. Mass media doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Stop listening to pundits and think about what’s going on.

    Free market economics are based on hypothesis, theory and testing. Socialism is based on presumption.

    Andy by the way, looking at the previous example, research the term “crowding out” and compare it to the governments spending to free credit markets.

    Cheers,

    N.

84. onat said,

    April 11th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    this article (!) proves that idiocracy will become true.
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

85. me said,

    April 13th, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Wow your life must be so one dimensional what would you do if the worlds economy crashed…..would you crash and burn too?

86. Karl said,

    April 15th, 2009 at 10:07 am

    i dont know where to start so mamy things i wanna say to a capitalist. But one thing i do know that capitalist are no better than a child molester, and we shall hang every capitalst including the one who sold us the rope. Thaks to a capitalsi system we have social classes that obviously put other people into many disadvantages and sadly they back it up with the belief of survival of the fittest. im degraded to know other humans such as yourself can put other peole to disadvantages and keeping and squeezing the poor to the last drop of money they got. I can honestly say you’re a white male upper middle class with the inner culture of money value.

87. S.Smith said,

    April 16th, 2009 at 12:26 am

    I think capitalism is awesome: for people. Corporations are not people…corporations don’t die (naturally) and they therefore have a parasitic attachment to communities.

    Oh well. I like rich and poor and all, but Capitalism is the only sensible economic freedom. For people (or, at least, real, live entities).

88. frasmus said,

    April 26th, 2009 at 5:31 am

    Too bad Capitalism will never be good enough for two groups: The busybodies who can’t be content to manage their own affairs but have to meddle with other people’s; and the power-hungry psychopaths obsessed with making slaves of us all.

89. anthony said,

    April 26th, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    it seems to me all you care about is money. and many of the rich people i know, regardless of their work ethics, are the most miserable people i know.

    Capitalism reduces everything concerning money and its value, it turns everything into an ironic, valueless existance.

90. Xaio said,

    April 26th, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    Imagine two farmers. Farmer A works 5% harder than Farmer B. Does he deserve more? Certainly.

    Let’s Imagine these two outside an economic system like capitalism; without a monetary system:
    Every year Farmer A works harder and grows more crops, probably around 5% more. What does this mean? His family has more to eat. Perhaps he has more to trade to other nearby people. Can he horde these extra crops or the things he trades them for? No, not without some form of currency. So, overall small amount of harder work make for a slightly better life for he and his kin. If either farmer has a particularly bad year the other can cover for him, this is especially true of Farmer A, but this has no real impact on the way of things. Second to worst case scenario both have a terrible year and Farmer A’s family barely makes it to the next year and B doesn’t.

    Now let’s imagine these two in a capitalist society:
    Every year Farmer A works 5% harder and produces around 5% more crops. He sells these crops and accumulates money. So every year he gains more and more, 5% plus 5%. Eventually he has enough money to buy more land and hire others to work it. Now, depending on what he can get away with paying his workers, he’s making even more. Let’s be conservative and say it’s only another 5%. Now by working 5% harder he get’s 10% more.
    Now let’s imagine that famine again. What happens now? Does Farmer A give his excess to Farmer B? No, it has permanent value now. It won’t just go bad or be eaten by his own like our previous example. He could offer to sell the extra to Farmer B but Farmer B has only ever made enough for his own so he hasn’t the money to buy it. What does he have? He has his farm. Farmer A agrees pay Farmer B a generous sum for his farm, more than enough to get through the year, in return for his farm. Perhaps Farmer A is a kind soul and hires Farmer B on to work his own land for enough money to continue the life style he previously had.
    You see where this is going. Farmer A’s 5% get’s bigger and bigger even though he isn’t working any harder.

    You speak of capitalism as if it is a system that naturally reflects the abilities and work of the people in it. This is not true. The natural world outside capitalism does this but not any system with a monetary system. Monetary systems naturally inflate those small differences in skill to obscene levels. The stronger are usually the one who are on the tops yes but 5% dose not equal 10%, 20%, 1000%, and what of the next generation? Farmer A’s children needn’t work at all let alone more than their peers they have a self-sustaining empire.
    And what if Farmer A or his children aren’t as benevolent as the farmer in our example and continue to pay Farmer B and their other workers less and less as they gain their land? Is there anything to stop them from doing this in unregulated capitalism? No, in fact if anything the system itself encourages him to do so: what if there is another if there is a Farmer C in a similar position as Farmer A who is willing to choke his worker’s wages? He can sell his crops for less and if he owns enough land he can cover the entirety of the demand leaving Farmer A with no market.

    Is capitalism evil? Is being rich wrong? No. Are there other benefits to capitalism such as advanced society? Certainly. Is capitalism the best of imperfect choices? Perhaps. Does that that give you license to pretend it’s some fairy tale get-what-you-deserve paradise and all the liberals just want your hard earned money which you “deserve?” No. Farmer A doesn’t deserve what he has, he deserves 5% more.

    Support capitalism if you think it’s best, but don’t lie to yourself about reality.

91. Dirty Pete said,

    April 28th, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    lol. nice article, cracked me up when I saw the skinny dead chipmunk.

    I just found out the other day that Alan Greenspan and Ayn Rand were avid friends, I am a fan of both and would consider myself an avid capitalist.

    I do believe that gov’t has to have a role in the markets to keep everything running as smooth as possible.

    Companies should never be “too big to fail”, the free market isn’t valid if they’re profiting from gains and socializing their losses.

    Greed is a powerful human force. We need gov’t regulation to keep businesses and people accountable.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

    Greenspan is the only person I have seen admit to his role in this current mess. I really admire that.

92. Tiana said,

    May 10th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Oh StumbleUpon, why did you think I would like this?

    Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy.

    No. Capitalism rewards some of each because you do not have to work hard in order to be successful. Sure, it helps. But if you think about it in more detail, capitalism rewards lucky and/or intelligent people (both not something one can become on purpose) and punishes those who:

    - are disabled
    - are clumsy
    - are not that smart
    - were abused or neglected as a child
    - are mentally ill
    - have been misdiagnosed for years
    - grew up poor
    - had no access to good education as a child
    - grew up in a different country
    - are unattractive
    - etc.

    I get the rest of the article, really, even though I disagree, but THAT sentence made me want to bang my head against the wall. I know way too many hard-working poor people and lazy rich bastards.

93. Hard-working vs. Lazy?? « Amaranthine Battle said,

    May 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    [...] vs. Lazy?? May 11, 2009 — Tiana From a comment I just left on a random old blog post that I stumbled upon: Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the [...]

94. Chris said,

    June 6th, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    lol… recipe for yummy economic jello mix:

    Start with 2 cups of blue capitalism jello,
    Mix in 1 cup of yellow socialism jello,

    …enjoy!

    (a.k.a. Canadian jello mix)

95. Indy317 said,

    June 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    Yes! I’m a capitalist because I like big cities and a progressive mindset. Liberalism and socialism accomplish nothing. Corporations keep people employed and money pays the bills. If the government would downsize and give American freedom and rights back to the American people and quit wasting our tax dollars on useless government programs, we would have more freedom. Keep our cities progressive, run our factories in the U.S., make our big businesses self-perpetuating and tell the Feds to butt out!!!

96. right on!! said,

    June 29th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    If you are anti-capitalist, you are either lazy or stupid. All capitalism does is put the money into the hands of the people that earn the money. Sorry, but I cant afford to give all of my money to Obama. I would rather have the freedom to spend it myself. I am not wealthy. I work very long hours, but I EARN every penny that I bring home. That’s the difference.

97. apun said,

    July 17th, 2009 at 4:34 am

    I have read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged so I can understand the violence with which you defend capitalism, I used to think that too.

    But think about the real world. If I am a rich person (with no brains) today all I have to do is put some of my money into investment banks (goldman sachs, jp morgan chase etc). If some bank loses my money then I discontinue working with it. So am I working hard? Am I getting the fruits of my labour? Or am I just cruising in my yacht eating fruits like the Romans used to?

    Also think about the big corporations (or the big businesses). Now I admire businesses who struggle right from nothingness to big successes (google). They really deserve the success that they get because they have provided the community with something. But what happens when they become so big that their innovation does not feed them anymore? Then they look for other businesses, which were just like them, growing and buy them out and continue their way to profits … this does not require brains, all you need to do is see which of the small companies have the potential to succeed.

    In the end these companies become monopolies. And eco 101 tells us that monopolies (although not fundamentally evil) have the power to control prices so that their ‘maximisation of profits’ hurts society more than it helps them (utility theory).

    Believe me I do not support socialism. In India before the 1990s when the government used to own everything, there used to be clerks who used to do nothing other than sit on their chairs, drink tea and get paid for nothing. Corruption was at its highest, to get a piece of paper from one desk to the other money needed to change hands!!

    Socialism is worse than capitalism (collapse of the soviet union), but capitalism would doom a man to die if he did not have money to pay for his medical bills.

    Also I do not believe that capitalism rewards those who work hard. Capitalism MAY reward entrepreneurial spirit but even this is very limited, you need to look for a niche market and you need to have a particular type of mindset to succeed. You won’t necessarily make money by doing what you like. You need to select ‘hot’ topics of research or study current global trends. Most artists have been recognised long after they are dead! F. Scott Fitzgerald considered himself a failure before his death. The bottomline : if u want to make money then study the ways to make money, like think about joining banks or starting a business or plan to move your way up the career ladder by working hard at the same job for a decade or two. However u can also choose a path where u do what u enjoy but u may not necessarily make enough money, may be just enough live a decent life. If u do what u like & make a hell lot of money then ur one happy person also possibly a lucky one!!

98. Basta said,

    July 29th, 2009 at 1:25 am

    Wow–there’s a lot going on here. There are few times I can get simultaneously ecstatic and depressed as places like this.

    Shaun’s article is great and I agree with him on every point. He obviously has a lot of time and thought backing this up, yet his writing is clear and simple enough for even the Marxists lambasting him to understand.

    I too am a minimum wage employee and I deserve what I make. If inclined I could find a better-paying job, but I’m doing fine for now. I agree that my superiors deserve what they make. The head of my company is filthy rich–he’s made of pure grit, works every minute of his life and, to the best of my knowledge, is neither an idiot nor a scholar.

    Apun, above me, says that “If I am a rich person (with no brains) today all I have to do is put some of my money into investment banks.” How does this rich person have this preexisting money? Is it inherited? If so, consider the extremely small margin of people who inherit fortunes. I know none personally and can’t think of many in the press. Then realize that somebody who inherits such a fortune doesn’t usually work to preserve it unless he or she is smart to begin with. I think immediately of Paris Hilton, though there are others. I don’t see her personally investing her money.

    The problem is that the anti-capitalist focus is on exceptions rather than rules. Sure, the disabled, the unprepared elderly, the extremely stupid, etc. aren’t going to fit perfectly with any plan, but we shouldn’t strive to make their lives luxurious at the expense of the other competent yet shackled 99% of the population. I’m not saying a solution is impossible or that it can’t be achieved through private enterprise. We just need to put our priorities in order.

99. That guy said,

    August 26th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    How-bout this -each and every fellow foul mouthed would be dictators goon, government loving laky. Capitalism is THE way of life regardless. You don’t like money- but you use it to buy your crap. You say you like people, but you harass folks for holding ideas other than yours. I am not a so hypocritical, I like money because it buys me my crap. I don’t like people in general, because we are close minded selfish and antagonistic creatures from birth. Government is not going to take care of your business for you- it is full of the aforementioned people. Truth is, even if you became the supreme commander of north commi-stan, capitalism would still thrive because Folks do what they feel is necessary to live- regardless of what any government says. Why did mobs invade new York- government sanction; why do gangs plague us with their crimes- government sanctions and antagonistic instincts; why was the USSR formed- people thought government was the answer; why did it fall- those people where wrong as hell; why did the third rich (a socialist party) nearly take over everything, kill millions, and fall under a lack of resources primarily- government was not the friggin answer. Is this going to make a “I love everybody- if they agree with me” socialist change their mind- NO, because they are just as selfish and antagonistic as the rest of us and they love themselves too much to even entertain the thought of being wrong. How-bout that now.

100. MG said,

     September 2nd, 2009 at 12:06 am

     Bravo for that article.

101. Ellis said,

     September 16th, 2009 at 6:48 am

     If Farmer A lived within his means (did not consume more than he produced) a bad year would not result in Farmer A buying his farm. Unless of course he owed property taxes to a goverment – but in a pure capitalist enviroment there would be no tax.
     There is a utopia and here is mine.
     I want to be free – personally and economically
     I want to live in a land where each person is treated equally by the law (- ie stealing is stealing by either rich, impoverished, or goverment)
     Goverment is restricted by law from any benevolent activity

     I will not worry about monoploies, I fear not Walmart or Bill Gates, coal companies, or world banks, as long as I am not compelled by goverment to engage in business with them (for example law against owning gold – or law against barter) I will de-monopolize them by not buying from them.

     One thing you anti-capitalist are ignoring. The free people of the US are the most private givers to charity in the history of the world. I understand that you are frustrated that some beaurocrat didn’t get to steal the time and money and direct it to where you thought it best, but it was given and you cannot deny it.

     By the way – this is very close to the ideals of the US founding fathers!

102. Trev said,

     September 25th, 2009 at 3:20 pm

     Bare with me as I type out loud! I can’t believe this guy, talking about a system that he loves and knows almost nothing about. In today age, I come across people that also say why they think advertisement is good also. I mean could you imagine, the balls of ignorance. For anyone to say that any of these “ism’s” are great, just makes me laugh. Actually its a scary state of affairs in this world. Most people would love to own the larger slice of the pie, justify somehow that its ok to have the majority of the wealth. Then defend them self’s that the ones that are not capable to obtain wealth don’t deserve it.

     There are so many ignorant statements in this guys ridiculous rant, I don’t even know where to start. The idea of reward and punishment is just barbaric! The most scary thing about this person is the larger majority of the sheepel out there do not have the proper tools/information to assess one’s environment properly. I really don’t blame this guy for his lack of understanding because in a way we are all groomed and lead into a single product. To say “I like justice”is a good thing . Do you like all the negative aspects of just too? With out pulling out a 45 page report on why this should not make any sense, I should sum it up in a sentences. “The wealth of justice will never pay through poverty”.

     Every time I read someone ranting about why they support something without measuring all the evidence, I become physically sick. This person is just another American classical case of a high Ideals and Morals.

     “I am a capitalist because I hate poverty”? Of course capitalism could cure poverty! I mean come on, do we need to go back to college and brush up on our economic courses. If this individual has ever even been to college or university? Ignorance is bliss for most people. I could go on for days on why this particular statement is incorrect.

     “Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy”. Oh great, now is our chance to punish people. Its time for punishment to rein. I just can’t stop laughing, really its like a bad commercial, or Sarah Paulin trying to explain herself on key government issues. After a while you just can hide the truth that you have no idea what you are talking about! This has to be one of the most pathetic statements I have ever heard.

     “Every restriction destroys lives”. I actually like this one. I quess this is why we should be free from any type of restrictions. Good for you! I actually really like this
     statement! But stop being a hypocrite! Do you honestly think Capitalism is restriction Free? So what now, you support capitalism but you support the restrictions is posses or creates or encourages or promotes or invents or etc.

     “The rich that I’ve met in my life are the hardest working individuals I’ve ever known. YOU DON’T KNOW THAT MANY PEOPLE! Sorry to break it to you. I have had enough of this person’s statement. I could literally take every sentence of the article, line by line and correct it. Too much for me!

103. D. Baker said,

     October 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm

     “Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy”. Oh great, now is our chance to punish people. Its time for punishment to rein”

     Dude, you and the rest of the liberal cry babies that have honored us with your thoughts should all shut the fu** up! What the hell do you think a progressive and grossly unfair income tax does? If it’s not a punishment to have Uncle Sam forcefully take ones legally earned property and then give it to someone else. What is? Is it only punishment if it’s happening to the poor/lazy?

     You retards are missing the point. It is not anyone’s intention to “keep anybody down”. No one is “punished” by capitalism. There is only reward for effort or indifference for laziness. Money is not, nor should it ever be free. It is not a crime to suggest that you work for what you want and need. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING! SO SHUT THE FU** UP AND GET A JOB OR DROP DEAD!!!

104. ejes said,

     October 23rd, 2009 at 12:19 pm

     Boy you’re stupid!

     Capitalism is the persuit of money regardless of the cost to society. You like big business? that’s cool, they don’t give a shit about you, or your job. Fact is, if regulation didn’t force them to, they would farm out your work (and any other work) to ANYONE willing to do it for less money – that means you and your family’s business would inevitablly be shipped overseas to africa, india, china or whereever they can find cheap labour – pennys a day cheap. and don’t think that your ol’ pal “big businness” will pass the savings on to you, or their clients – hell no, the profit is going into their pants pocket.
     who gets screwed? their customers. Big business became big because they could leverage something against society. Take Bell for example, they’re the only ones who could afford (at the time) to put telephone lines everywhere, and because of that, they’re huge – not because their service is steller, or because they do a good job, only because they own the lines – and therefore can charge anything for use of their lines – and they do.

     you like small business? great! bet you don’t cut corners either – the fact is your pal big business hates your small business and will do anything they can to bury your mom and pop shop. don’t beleive me? look at what M$ did to Netscape.

     rich people have little or nothing to do with “capitalism” other than they own more of the worlds resources than you or i will ever own. and no, they won’t share it with you. Rich people are greedy, that’s why they’re rich.

     The rich can afford healthcare, and medicine. and they don’t give a damn if you can’t. Yet another reason we need governments stepping in to keep medical bills and healthcare low, otherwise a mere cold could bankrupt all but the wealthy – the USA is suffering severly by this alerady, where a serious illness can force even the upper middle class to bankrupcy. So in your world, you’re free to die from your illness, and doctors are free to charge you more than you can afford to keep you healthy.

     You must be extra stupid if you think the poor are poor because they’re lazy. and the rich work harder than the poor… that’s completely false, often the poorest are the hardest working – let’s look at an example that made north america one of the richest nations in the world – slavery. by your “logic” slaves must be lazy, otherwise they’d be rich… so these slaves working themselves to death nearly daily must be the laziest bastards on the planet, and the rich white guys who own them are probably picking all the cotton for themselves.

     Money in itself isn’t bad… but when you value it more than the lives of others more than your own life, then there’s a problem. If you truly love your money more than anything else you’ll have nothing in the end except money – nothing.

105. Camilo said,

     December 19th, 2009 at 1:20 am

     Business people often know as little about the businesses they run as politicians know about business.

     Restriction is the only way to reign in monopolies, which are notably not good for workers. On a similar but separate note, as monopolies become more powerful, they will likely invest in automation and lose workers just as much as if their business were curtailed.

     Just because the public can be convinced to buy a product, that by no means makes it good.

     He makes the argument that rich people work harder. Although this yells foul to me, I think it serves best to reflect on a case by case basis on the nature of the work “the rich” are doing and whether they are actually benefitting society in any way or just pursuing capital and causing economic growth in a closed environment where perpetual economic growth is unreasonable.

     Liberalism does not cause poverty, unequal distribution of wealth creates poverty.

     “Capitalism rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy.” That, and/or it rewards the greedy and punishes the altruistic. I think it is better for our culture to not do the latter even at the cost of the former.

     The incentive of the profit motive leads to so much irrational and irresponsible behavior that it being called the “only system consonant with man’s rational nature” is at best uneducated and at worst blatantly deceitful propoganda.

     Finally, money is only an effective system of labor exchange where scarcity is omnipresent. Given any abundance, the system of monetary exchange works only to distract from the effective and sustainable management of resources. Instead of managing abundance equitably, money forces it into the hands of a few, and only seeks to secure abundance insofar as it can be controlled.

106. FreeMarketer said,

     February 2nd, 2010 at 3:11 pm

     <>
     Name Calling wont get you far in a debate. Grow up

     <>

     Capitalism is actually an economic system in wich the means of production are privatly owned. The only possible alternative to that is, collective ownership, government ownership, as in communism. This is by the way the reason why were so quick to call people who argue against capitalism commies. Because you really are arguing against individuals owning the means of production, you whant Big Brother to come in and nationalize them.

     <>

     Well no one is foolish enough to think that buisiness people do buisiness because they care about others, one of the main idea behind capitalism is that by pursuing ur own goals you in the end serve the interest of the common good. Or as Adam Smith put it in the whealt of nations :

     It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens.

     So if you go to Wal-Mart to buy some meat, of course they are not selling it to you because they care about you. They whant ur 10 bucks more than they whant to keep the meat, you whant the meat more than you whant to keep ur 10 bucks. Out of self-interest, they provide you food wich you could not have provided for yourself as quickly and easily on ur own. That is why you should like them. Because spending 5 minutes in walmart is far better than spending a day hunting in hope that maybe you will be able to kill something to eat.

     As for the argument that they would farm your out our work to africa if regulations didnt prevent them from doing it… What regulations are you talking about? Its called globalization, there are no regulations keeping them from doing it, that is why most cheap products are produced in China or India nowadays, take NAFTA for instance, unemployement got lower in the US after NAFTA than it was before NAFTA, until the 08 collapse (of government-run mortgage firms by the way).
     It is true that a third world worker will do ur job for 1/10 of ur salary, but then why arent you worried about machines, they can do ur work 100 times faster for 1/1000 of ur salary. The vast majority of the labour that was done by men one hundred years ago is now done by machines, yet the vast majority of people did not go unemployed, why? It in the end resulted in more job creation, more productivity and more importantly, more whealt creation. Same goes for foreign labour, they take the job because they need it. You might loose urs, but ur far more likely to get one of the new jobs created as a result of the whealt created in the process. The problem is that job lost as a result of globalization are very visible, but jobs created as a result of globalization are invisible.

     and don’t think that your ol’ pal “big businness” will pass the savings on to you, or their clients – hell no, the profit is going into their pants pocket.

     Like Wal-Mart making 4 cents per dollars in sale? Or Rockefeller in the 19th century, making the cost of oil go down by 90%? Or Andrew Carnegie making the price of steel go down by 90%? If they don<t pass the savings down to you, then ull shop were they do, its called competition.

     <>

     Big business became big because they could offer better products at lower prices, or in certain cases because they were the only one able to provide a service or product that people wanted. Wal-Mart for instance does not screw the customer, if the customers wanted to they could shop at Target, or K-Mart or Costco, and so on… Wal-Mart keeps getting bigger because people keep choosing to go shop there.

     <>

     In other worlds, without Bell, there would not be telephone lines everywhere? You know since they were the only ones able to afford them? So it would be better if there were no phones at all?

     <>

     That is right, they save up, spend carefully, work hard and take risks. They suceed. Asking the government to take 50% of their income away and give it to you is not greedy of course.

     <>

     In fact in you dont count people who can afford healt insurance and choose not to purchase it, and illegal immigrants, only 12 million americans cant afford healtcare insurance, so its not just the rich as you suggest. Government stepping in to keep bills low? That is why the government in preventing americans from purchasing healtcare across state lines? Thats how you keep costs low? And why does the senate bill include a ban from importing cheap drugs in the US?
     Why is it that while the price of most goods as gone down over the past decades, the cost of healtcare as gone up, considering that healtcare is the most regulated industry in America?

     <>
     Another name call, impresive. North America is a continent not a country. As for slavery, it was an abomination I wont deny that. You also might whant to note that slavery was around since the begining of times, and was ended during capitalism. Your annalogy does not add up, there is a fundamental diference between being a worker in a capitalist free-market, and choose where your going to work, and being a slave. The difference is called freedom. And of course freedom was not achieved until capitalism. Wanna go back to feudalism maybe?

107. abraveseimb said,

     March 17th, 2010 at 7:20 pm

     im thinking of buying one, who has ever bought one of these: http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=f+ydX/AT8aWBkkS1CaseDoh4l5k2TGxc

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URL

Post a Comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

URL

• Pages

  • About
  • Contact
  • My Resume
  • Projects

• Sister Projects

  • Learn Financial Planning
  • Learn Gold Coins
  • Learn Wealth Management
  • Rebirth of Freedom
  • Stand Strong Media

• Recent Posts

  • Family is Everything
  • Great Marketing is Vital to Success, Period.
  • Why Most Internet Marketers Fail. Big time.
  • The Make Money Online Article
  • So who invented the iPod?

• Tags

  ban drugs capitalism christianity christian philosophy creator debate research drug war economic liberty election Election 08 Emotion freedom free markets great speaches gun control happiness philosophy immigration research internet marketing jesus Jesus Quotes Jesus Sayings legislate morality legislating morality liberty meaning of life morality networking patriotism Philosophy philosophy of happiness policy policy research policy search rational apologetics rational christianity Rationality reaganomics Reason rebirth of freedom foundation research roff ronald reagan totalitarianism war on drugs Whim

Copyright © Shaun Connell, 2008

Financial Planning | Online Savings Account | Make Money Online