Capitalism

What People Get Wrong About Capitalism

"We went from agricultural poverty to a country characterized by middle-class prosperity."

|

Last week, I debunked three myths about capitalism. Here are four more:

Myth Number Four: Capitalism creates unsafe workspaces.

"Greedy capitalists" will risk workers' lives to increase production if government, through agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), doesn't stop that.

It's logical to assume that government regulation saves lives. Workplace deaths dropped after the OSHA was created. Government officials like showing a graph of the decline.

But if you bother to also look at data from before the OSHA's creation, you see that deaths fell at the same rate before regulation began! Why?

"As we become richer, we become safer," says Dan Mitchell of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

Wealth created by capitalism lets us afford safety devices and build machines to do dangerous work. The OSHA is like someone jumping in front of a parade and claiming he led the parade.

"We need more capitalism because when people get rich, they can afford more safety!" adds Mitchell.

Myth Number Five: "Unfettered" capitalism created evil "robber barons" who got rich by "exploiting" workers and consumers.

It's true that more than 100 years ago, a few entrepreneurs, such as John D. Rockefeller, amassed a huge amount of wealth.

But Rockefeller was neither robber nor baron. He was not born rich, and he didn't rob. He got rich by offering consumers better deals.

Rockefeller developed ways to deliver oil for less. He won customers by lowering the price of kerosene from 26 cents per gallon to about 6 cents.

For the first time, average people could afford fuel for lanterns so they could read after dark. Rockefeller may have even "saved the whales" by making oil so cheap that killing whales to get whale oil was no longer practical.

His competitors hated him for cutting prices. It was they who convinced the gullible media to call Rockefeller and other entrepreneurs "robber barons."

Cornelius Vanderbilt was also born poor. At age 11, he quit school to work on boats.

Then he invented ways to make travel cheaper. He cut the New York-Hartford fare from $5 to $1.

Because of capitalists like them, Mitchell points out, "We went from agricultural poverty to a country characterized by middle-class prosperity."

Still, I'm told that even if capitalism brings us cheaper or better products, it just isn't "good for us."

That's Myth Number Six.

Of course, capitalism can breed nasty materialism. Fox News' Tucker Carlson sneers, "Does anybody believe cheaper iPhones or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China will make us happy?"

Mitchell responds, "We're not buying iPhones and plastic garbage unless we think it's better for us than the dollars that we have!"

That's a very important point. No capitalist gets our money unless we voluntarily choose to exchange it for whatever he's selling. As Mitchell puts it, "Capitalism is the only system that gives people the liberty to make their own choices."

Myth Number Seven: Capitalism's pursuit of profit drives businesses to create robots that will eventually take away most everyone's job.

It could happen. Artificial intelligence is powerful. Maybe this time is different.

But again and again, experts predicted that employment was about to decline—and again and again, they've been wrong.

Some people do lose jobs. Capitalism promotes creative destruction.

It's terrible for the fired employee.

But it's good for most everyone else. It's what allows for innovation.

Mitchell points out, "The computer destroyed the typewriter builder's job, electricity took candlemakers' jobs," but those jobs were soon replaced with better ones.

Capitalism has continually generated more jobs. When America began, 90 percent of workers worked on farms. Now fewer than 2 percent do. And there are millions more of us.

"As long as our economy has the dynamism that free markets allow," says Mitchell, "we're going to see more job creation and higher income levels. That's what makes the children and grandchildren of typewriter makers so much better off. No other system anywhere in the world has ever come close to capitalism's ability to generate mass prosperity."

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: The Feds Can’t Compel States to Enforce Restrictions on Guns or Immigrants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well said, thank you. Too damned many people are so blind to their minor remaining problems that they can’t see how much better everybody is than 100, 50, even ten years ago, so all they do is whine for Uncle Sam to save them from a first world problem.

    1. The government education system, the media and Hollywood are huge parts of the problem. They peddle so much ignorant leftist crap. Primarily because they are ignorant leftists.

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings dd are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. +

  2. This is worth coming here and being subjected to Liz, Welch, Fonzie, and the B Team

  3. With capitalism some get more than others but everybody gets some.

    1. With capitalism people get what they produce themselves or what others volunteer to exchange. That some might not be as productive, especially of things others want, means they have less. That is called economic justice.

      1. economic justice — Well Said!

    2. With capitalism any economic system some get more than others but everybody gets some. FTFY….but….

      The reason that sentence is true of all economic systems is because humans have infinite desires, but the Earth represents a set of finite resources, so scarcity exists.

      Going further, note that capitalism is the only system found, so far, which provides more resources to more people more efficiently and more morally when compared to any other economic system (such as marxism or socialism, which I know both of those go further than just economics).

      1. Not quite. In economic systems other than capitalism, the “everybody gets some” is questionable and sometimes flatly untrue.

  4. How bout we replace all the public school SJW CRT indoctrination with Stossel clips? It will be easier for the teachers two ways: one, just put a video on the screen and walk away and two, teaching something that actually true might encourage a few more kids to stick with the program.

    1. +

  5. Stossel seldom disappoints.

  6. The present study employs Automatic ARIMA through R package “forecast”, to predict the growing number of cases for upcoming 14 days starting on 1st July 2020 and ending on 14 July 2020. Using 107 daily observations of the confirmed cases of COVID-19 more detail……….VISIT HERE.

  7. Capitalism means you don’t need a bigger slice of the pie (leaving less for everyone else) because the pie keeps getting bigger and bigger.

    1. Wealth and prices are relative, though, so you do need a “bigger slice” (more money) of the pie if the pie continues to get bigger. Hence inflation.

      1. Bullshit. First, capitalism in the US worked for for over 100 years without inflation; it was the Fed that began that racket.

        Second, inflation has nothing to do with actual wealth. A rise by any other name would still be a rose; when everyone is better off in actual health, wealth, opportunity, and all other measures, it doesn’t matter what measurement scale you use. You may as well worry about measuring prices in different currencies as worry about inflation.

        1. “Second, inflation has nothing to do with actual wealth.”

          Except that it does. If I’m wrong, I’m sure you’ll be happy to accept the initial $0.25 per hour minimum wage passed in 1938. Why not? If it was enough money then to live on, surely it’s enough now, right?

          Oh wait, it’s almost like inflation completely matters and dictates what you can and cannot afford.

          I’ll repeat – wealth is relative, and so is buying power. As the amount of money in an economy grows, so too must your own amount of money, otherwise your purchasing power and wealth will decline.

          1. Can yee nay understand the difference between wealth and its measurement?

            I ken that yee cannot.

          2. What an astonishingly stupid comment. Yes, inflation is important. It has nothing to do with wealth gain.

            Inflation is about how much things cost. Wealth is about how many things you have. A family that has two color TVs is wealthier than the family was when they only had one. It doesn’t matter that the price of the TVs (and everything else) doubled in the same time.

  8. The irony of this post is that its author doesn’t appear to be aware that a market-based economy and capitalism are not one and the same.

    Capitalism is simply a system where investing in business is largely controlled by a small number of people who already have large sums of wealth. A market-based economy is pretty self-explanatory; it’s one in which most industries operate within a market where buyers and sellers are free to choose what to buy and sell from whom they choose.

    One can have the benefits of a market-based economy without the pitfalls of unregulated capitalism. The greatest issue with unregulated capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth and resources. This not only harm’s people’s quality of life, but also stifles innovation by making it difficult for would-be entrepreneurs to access sufficient capital to see their ideas to fruition.

    1. “Capitalism is simply a system where investing in business is largely controlled by a small number of people who already have large sums of wealth.”

      No shit? Wow! I didn’t realize that my meager investments through my 401K meant I had large sums of wealth! I’m gonna quit my job! Woo hoo!

      1. I tried to post this the other day, but I provided multiple links, which apparently triggers Reason to force the comment to hang in limbo while awaiting moderation. Here I provide just one link to avoid moderation-waiting.

        Note the part where I say “largely controlled by.”

        The vast majority of stocks, and thus control of companies and profit from them, are owned by relatively few people:

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-richest-1-own-50-of-stocks-held-by-american-households-150758595.html

        So my point stands; the operations of the economy and where investments go is mostly controlled by wealthy people, not by ordinary Americans.

    2. “Unreasinable” is about the only thing correct in your post. Regulation destroys freedom and almost never accomplishes its stated goals, primarily because government is run by hucksters out to consolidate power, damn the public, damn the side effects, damn the results themselves.

      Markets exist regardless of government rubes distortions, just like gravity exists regardless of airplanes, rockets, roller coasters, magnetic levitation, or any otehr temporary obstacles.

    3. “…without the pitfalls of unregulated capitalism…”

      Fuck off, slaver.

    4. The irony of this post is that its author doesn’t appear to be aware that a market-based economy and capitalism are not one and the same.

      Those two things aren’t the same, but aren’t analogous either. For instance, in a capitalistic society one would expect to see largely a market based economy, not “a few people with lots of money”.

      The point being you cannot compare the two as they aren’t in the same plane of existence. Tangentially there, but not equals.

  9. Stossell – Doing an excellent job of defeating Nazi Indoctrination.

  10. “Capitalism has continually generated more jobs. ”

    This is not what people like Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson wanted in Capitalism. They saw Capitalism as the best way for the citizens to become free and independent rather than subordinate to their masters as in the days of feudalism. They never suspected the rise of the great corporations that employed thousands of servile workers, sometimes for their entire working lives. They did realize that employment would still exist, but thought it would be a temporary condition among young people as they learned the ropes of their trade before setting off on their own. Like an apprenticeship.

    1. You can thank ever-growing National Socialism for the lack of the ‘apprenticeship’ jobs. It takes a 1/2-Million just to battle with the Gov-Gods to persuade them to LET YOU ‘apprentice’.

      Thou shalt ask thy Gov-God for permission before doing a,b,c,d,e,f,g……………….. Because… You “people” didn’t build that stuff you built… [WE] did! (Obama-nation 101)

      1. Back in the days of Smith, apprentices had to pay their master.

        1. Yes, and today many people pay for an education; it is, after all, an economic “good”.

          1. “today many people pay for an education”

            Is that what you’re calling it now?

            1. Oh, how…….
              Pathetic.
              Your mom lied when she said you were smart.

    2. Well said.

      The legal rights granted to corporations (i.e. wealthy people pooling their resources together for their mutual benefit) are rather insane and cause all kinds of problems.

      Corporations and the wealthy have disproportionate power in the economy. Without countervailing powers of workers, they are left negotiating with those much more powerful than them, and often have little meaningful choice but to accept what the wealthy dictate.

      The balance of power needs to shift away from the wealthy and corporations towards workers.

      1. You show your idiocy again. Workers have more power than corporate owners; they can switch jobs a whole lot easier than businesses can dire everybody and train replacements, or switch from producing tractors to producing socks.

        Customers have the most power of all, because they get all those choices. Which brand of deodorant do they want? If it were up to you and Bernie, there’d be one state-mandated choice, which you’d have to buy whether you like dit or not, or even if you wanted no deodorant at all.

        Regulation of corporations is only “necessary” in your minds because government have them monopolies, whether by copyrights and patents, by regulating them as utilities, with tariffs, special carve-outs, turning a blind eye, or whatever crony tricks they can get away with. Absent government, there would be no monopolies; monopolies are only a result of government interference.

        Take your ignorance to a library, start educating yourself.

        1. “Workers have more power than corporate owners; they can switch jobs a whole lot easier than businesses can dire everybody and train replacements, or switch from producing tractors to producing socks.”

          That’s just it – some workers can switch jobs easily, but many, if not most, cannot. You might be fortunate enough to not be living paycheck to paycheck, but a whole lot of Americans are. They literally cannot afford to lose their job, even for a couple weeks, else they cannot afford food, rent, or gas. If they can’t go without work, they might have to take time off…unless of course they don’t get any time off, which is common because our country doesn’t require employers to provide any. Changing jobs is not easy at all for many people.

          Regulation of corporations is necessary by default, as they are a government-created concept. Governments create laws to allow capitalists to pool their money together to form a corporation and enjoy all kinds of special legal privileges as a result (e.g. limited liability). It’s not a matter of whether or not corporations are regulated, but in what ways they are regulated.

          Same goes for unions – they enjoy special privileges granted by government. However in the US, the balance of power favors corporations over unions, hence the decline in union membership, and along with it, household income.

          1. Most workers can switch jobs far easier than all but a few corporate owners. If you think comparing theoretical perfection against imperfect reality is useful, continue masturbating your mind like that.

            1. The question is not how easy it is for a corporate owner to switch jobs.

              It’s whether workers have comparable power as corporations as far as negotiating terms of employment. In the US, workers typically have much less power.

              In countries with high union membership, workers thereby have a more equal footing in negotiating the terms of employment, and not surprisingly, developed countries with high unionization rates tend to have high living standards (e.g. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia), often better than in the US.

              1. “…It’s whether workers have comparable power as corporations as far as negotiating terms of employment. In the US, workers typically have much less power…”

                Lefty assertions =/= evidence or argument.

              2. You have no idea about anything you are speaking on – you don’t know why corporations were created, though you luckily guessed, have zero clue about what unions are actually used for in the US (or maybe you know what they’re used for and you’re just a garden variety racist), and you’re trying to compare a very small homogeneous population like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia against the US which is a cultural melting pot of hundreds of millions – not just millions.

                You literally cannot write a single sentence and place anything within it you think might be a fact and end up being correct. It’s astonishing how ignorant you are of any of this, yet so happy to confirm your ignorance by pointing out factually incorrect ideas you have as being factually correct.

        2. “Customers have the most power of all, because they get all those choices. ”

          You haven’t thought this through. Customers have the power of choice between a dozen different brands of deodorant. Corporations have the power of choice between millions of prospective employees.

          “Workers have more power than corporate owners; they can switch jobs a whole lot easier than businesses can dire everybody”

          Smith, Jefferson etc saw power as coming from the freedom and independence of a tradesman. They would be rolling in their graves to read your idea of freedom and independence as the ability to choose from a variety of positions of servitude.

          1. No, corporations do not.

            A socialist defining what Adam Smith or Jefferson would say today is typical bullshit. They lived in an age where 90% of the population were subsistence farmers, long before industrialization had begun lifting everybody out of poverty, and to expect their views on that would have remained the same is idiotic beyond belief.

            Are you really seriously suggesting that everybody would be better off as individuals artisans? No one is stopping you; go ahead, become an artisan, buy only from artisans.

            Individualism can simulate socialism by contract; socialism cannot tolerate individualism in the slightest, let alone simulate it. You can throw artisanalism in the mix too, individualism tolerates it just as well, But apparently you want to force everybody to be artisans, and that also cannot tolerate individualism, let alone simulate it.

            I have to hand it to you, making up a new brand of collectivism, “artisanalism”, where everybody is forced to work by themselves, and not allowed to work for anybody else or together.

            1. “A socialist defining what Adam Smith or Jefferson would say today is typical bullshit. ”

              I’m only repeating what Smith etc wrote while they were alive. You can agree or disagree with that. They never suspected that Capitalism would engender a situation where the vast majority of the working citizenry would spend their working lives in subjugation to an employer. On the contrary, they believed Capitalism would make them free and independent, except for a brief period of apprenticeship learning a skill while young.

              I understand that you disagree with this and think employees today are the ultimate in freedom because of the wealth of choice consumerism has on offer. I find this line of reasoning crass and unpersuasive.

              1. “…They never suspected that Capitalism would engender a situation where the vast majority of the working citizenry would spend their working lives in subjugation to an employer…”

                A socialist defining what Adam Smith or Jefferson would say today (which is exactly what you’re doing) is typical bullshit.

                1. “what Adam Smith or Jefferson would say today”

                  I’m not talking about what they would say today. I’m repeating what they said while they were still alive. They never suspected that Capitalism would result in the vast majority of workers spending their entire working lives in a condition of servile employment, reminiscent of feudalism. Rather they assumed it would lead to independence and freedom. Not freedom in the sense that they would have multiple choices of personal health care products on offer, as some here would have it, but freedom and independence in autonomy and self reliance.

                  1. “I’m not talking about what they would say today. I’m repeating what they said while they were still alive.”

                    And thereby claiming t know what they would say today.
                    Are you so stupid as to hope no one sees you sophist bullshit for what it is? Or so arrogant to hope they don’t?

                    1. “And thereby claiming t know what they would say today.”

                      You misunderstand. I’m not claiming to know what they would say today. I’m repeating what they wrote while they were still alive, over 200 years ago. They assumed Capitalism would result in freedom and independence for the society’s workers. They didn’t suspect that it would end up in a situation where the vast majority of workers would spend their working lives in a condition of servile employment.

                    2. “You misunderstand…”

                      You bullshit.

                    3. They assumed Capitalism would result in freedom and independence for the society’s workers.

                      Capitalism has resulted in higher levels of freedom and independence for more people than any alternative idea and is exponentially better at doing this than is…. say socialism as an example.

                      But you go further and seem to also think that this:

                      They didn’t suspect that it would end up in a situation where the vast majority of workers would spend their working lives in a condition of servile employment.

                      That is you seem to think that is the above is a) true & b) only possible or maybe substantially worse under a corporate structure.

                      To ease your mind a little I can assure you both of your assumptions are false – so seriously, you can like rest better because you now know that the percentage of people working in servile conditions increases exponentially the more the government leans to authoritarianism and further away from capitalism/freedom.

                      Sort of like that which happens under socialism.

                  2. “….. but freedom and independence in autonomy and self reliance.”

                    Which come from……. government?

                    Haha.

          2. “…Corporations have the power of choice between millions of prospective employees…”

            You.
            Are.
            Full.
            Of.
            Shit.

      2. Right Idea – Entirely Ignorant of the “problem”.

        “Corporations and the wealthy have disproportionate power in the economy.”
        “The balance of power needs to shift away from the wealthy and corporations towards workers.”

        Now;
        1) When did workers loose the ability to negotiate their VALUE (min wage law).
        2) When did workers loose the ability to negotiate their savings (SS law).
        3) When did workers loose the ability to build their own houses (Building Code Law).
        4) When did workers loose the ability to drive a self-made vehicle (DMV law).
        5) When did workers loose the ability to escape taxes via Corp Deductions? (IRS Law).

        Crony Socialism EVERYWHERE.

          1. Someone had to say it.

        1. Given that socialism is when workers own the means of production, it would seem you don’t understand this. Also many of your enumerated points are senseless; e.g. 1 – workers did not lose the ability to negotiate their wage. They simply have a floor below which the negotiation cannot go lower. See the difference? I hope so.

          Workers in this country would be much better off if it were easier to form a union and harder for corporations to oppose them. It’s not a coincidence that workers in unions tend to earn more than their non-unionized counterparts, and that increased unionization leads to less economic inequality.

          https://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/

          Nor is it surprising that unions helped workers achieve workplace safety measures and benefits we all take for granted, like a 40-hour work week and making child labor illegal.

          Worker empowerment is what this country is missing, and no amount of bad logic on your part can change that fact.

          1. “Given that socialism is when workers own the means of production, it would seem you don’t understand this…”

            Given that, in reality, socialism is when the *government* owns the means of production, your propaganda is not going to go far here.
            And “workers” (outside of those in the pub-sec are freely choosing to avoid working under union control, likely for the very good reason that unions protect the incompetent at the expense of the proficient.

            1. “Given that, in reality, socialism is when the *government* owns the means of production, your propaganda is not going to go far here.”

              As I correctly stated, socialism in its broadest terms is when workers own the means of production – government owning the means of production is but one potential form of worker ownership. It is, of course, the one people like you love to cling to and pretend is the only form of socialism, and of course the only one that lefties in the US are talking about. Essentially a straw man argument. I’d contend that you’re the one engaging in propaganda.

              I favor socialism in which workers directly have ownership in their workplaces, whether in the form of worker cooperatives or the form of large corporations being required to give employees stock options. These kinds of ownership models move decision-making to smaller, more “local” levels, as opposed to government ownership.

              Government ownership might make sense in some industries, but only a few.

              Workers are not merely “freely choosing” to avoid working in union workplaces, but often have trouble organizing unions thanks to union suppression activities (most recently, see Amazon). Employers have means of intimidating and discouraging workers from joining unions by employing propaganda, and there it’s not easy for workers or pro-union activists to do much about that.

              If unions are so bad for workers, why don’t workers in Nordic countries disband or quit them? Interestingly in some of those countries, the government does not have a minimum wage. Rather, the unions are so helpful to workers that the union contracts ensure good wages, and even non-union workers reap the benefit as their employers know they could potentially quit and join a unionized organization, and so pay a decent wage.

              1. “As I correctly stated, socialism in its broadest terms is when workers own the means of production – …”

                As you bullshitted….
                FTFY
                We’ve heard that collection of lies before and assholes like you who can’t seem to read any history are the reason we continue to deal with it.
                Fuck off, slaver.

                1. Cool, glad you have no conception of economic theory, just a multitude of meaningless insults. I’m sure that’s taking you far in life.

                  1. “Cool, glad you have no conception of economic theory”

                    His spelling is impeccable. And Sevo may have an idea what economic externalities are. A few weeks ago I took the trouble of explaining the admittedly difficult concept to him.

                    1. “…A few weeks ago I took the trouble of explaining the admittedly difficult concept to him…”

                      “Explanations” from ignorant lefty bullshitters are not; they are bullshit.

                    2. See what I tell ya? Impeccable spelling and he even throws a cheeky little semi colon at us. Trolling with more than a touch of class.

                    3. “See what I tell ya? Impeccable spelling and he even throws a cheeky little semi colon at us. Trolling with more than a touch of class.”

                      More bullshit from the lefty bullshitter; no surprise.

                    4. Wow. You’re a saint, m! I can’t believe that your condescension is met with such hostility! Sad.

                  2. “Cool, glad you have no conception of economic theory,…”

                    You’re full of shit along with being a lefty propagandist.

          2. Well; your screen name fits you well — *Unreasonable*
            1) Worker empowerment is what this country is missing
            Right… because;
            Pointing Gov-Guns = Wealth
            instead of
            Value = Wealth.
            2) They simply have a floor below which the negotiation cannot go lower
            – And when workers decide to compete with their corp counter-parts a big *cannot* compete lower than this flag props up now doesn’t it???
            3) 40-hour work week and making child labor illegal are yet ANOTHER *cannot* compete lower than

            So whether you want to admit it or not; All this *empowerment* of workers has completely destroyed their ability to start competing with Established Corporations through start-up road blocks and generally oppressive B.S. laws.

            But then again; That’s what is in the ‘heart’ of every lefty.. If we could only get MORE GOV-GUN oppression we could use them create (???from gun pointing???) ‘our’ wealth. Funny thing is pointing Guns doesn’t *create* wealth – it’s used to STEAL it so once it’s all stolen you’ll be eating worms anyways.

            VALUE = WEALTH.

          3. You’re an idiot….and it’s hard to know where to start, but I’ll try this one:

            Nor is it surprising that unions helped workers achieve workplace safety measures and benefits we all take for granted, like a 40-hour work week and making child labor illegal.

            Note first quickly that this is completely untrue, but if you have a citation you’d like to source that isn’t from Salon.com and the like, I’d be happy to read into it. But before you try too hard, know you are wrong, so if you have an article to cite, maybe check what the article is citing before pushing it out as fact, because you are wrong.

            If you have no citation, then I’ll know to ignore you in the future.

            1. We’ll see if Reason lets me post links, since an above post of mine is still awaiting moderation, presumably because of links I included.

              1. https://laborcenter.uiowa.edu/special-projects/child-labor-public-education-project/about-child-labor/child-labor-us-history

                “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined, and common initiatives were conducted by organizations led by working women and middle class consumers, such as state Consumers’ Leagues and Working Women’s Societies.”

              2. https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-the-40-hour-workweek-2015-10?op=1

                “A newly formed organization named the National Labor Union asked Congress to pass a law mandating the eight-hour workday. Though their efforts failed, they inspired Americans across the country to support labor reform over the next few decades.”

                Sorry, I know Business Insider is a bit of a liberal, socialist rag, but maybe it will suffice.

                1. Paraphrased — If you people won’t give us EXACTLY what we want we’ll get Gov-Guns to *FORCE* you to give us EXACTLY what we want instead of going out and CREATING what we want.

      3. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! ™, dude.

        Haha.

    3. Another fucking idiot who doesn’t understand life.

      Jobs are how people produce things to trade for things they want. In the bad old days, jobs were subsistence farming, all day long, every day of the year, and if you wanted something which you didn’t produce, you had to barter for it. You act as if working for a corporation and getting paid money is somehow evil on its face.

      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. ” You act as if working for a corporation and getting paid money is somehow evil on its face.”

        It’s a position of subordination, not independence and freedom. Thinkers like Smith and Jefferson never foresaw that the vast majority of the citizenry who spend their lives in servitude.

        1. Funny;
          – I didn’t get Corp-Guns pointed at me when I got my last job.
          – I got Gov-Guns insisting on 50% of my income stolen.

          Either you are….
          Full
          Of
          Shit
          Or you need to call the police and report that corporation for taking away your Liberty.

          1. “I didn’t get Corp-Guns pointed at me when I got my last job.”

            Did you pee in a cup? Many do.

            1. I wasn’t *FORCED* to; It was part of the job contract I CHOSE to accept by my own free-will. Many of which don’t require it and certainly isn’t required of my own self-employment.

              1. ” I CHOSE to accept by my own free-will.”

                Strange choice to make. I use my cups for drinking. I have a toilet for peeing.

                1. I’ll bet you assume someone sees that as clever as opposed to the bullshit it is.

                  1. Pissing in a toilet is clever. Choosing to piss in a cup is pitiful.

                    1. I’ll bet you assume someone sees that as clever as opposed to the bullshit it is.

            2. “Many”. Do you understand that word? I think not.

              1. We have at least one here who does so out of choice. I’ll remember that if s/he ever invites me over for tea. Or any other drink.

            3. “Did you pee in a cup? Many do.”

              Most don’t have to change the subject as often as you do.

        2. “It’s a position of subordination, not independence and freedom…”

          You.
          Are.
          STILL.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

    4. “…They never suspected the rise of the great corporations that employed thousands of servile workers, sometimes for their entire working lives…”

      I’ll bet they also missed predicting mouth-running idiots going on about “servile workers”, too.

  11. The only problem that capitalism cannot address is the “victim” of creative destruction. They aren’t really a victim because we know that free exchange leads to that mythical “greater good” that everyone is so fixated on lately, but in the moment, that person who loses their job does become obsolete. They are forced to change for the collective good and that kind of sucks.

    We’ve seen tone deaf answers from the government ala learn to code. In the past, “victims” have taken preventative actions. If you look back at economic history of the 18th and 17th century, guilds used to murder inventors to protect their own indusry. Pretty wacky stuff, but understandable where they’re coming from.

    I feel there should be a way to make up for the loss incurred by these people, or at least an expectation that their loss doesn’t allow them to go wild. There are winners and losers in the game of life.

    1. “…I feel there should be a way to make up for the loss incurred by these people, or at least an expectation that their loss doesn’t allow them to go wild…”

      Goody for you; I’d like a pony, too.
      We will never have a risk-free world; get over it.

      1. That’s why Marxists are more appropriately labeled Utopians.

        You don’t have to tell me to get over it. I’ve been over it. I’m just saying that I can’t really blame people for reacting poorly to becoming obsolete and that it’s probably worth our while to prepare for it given the Marxists’ propensity for violence.

        1. I wouldn’t worry too much about Marx. It’s Lenin you have to keep your eye on. He was smarter than Marx, craftier than Marx and more vicious than Marx. He promised land, peace and bread, and for a very short time he delivered on all three. Of course he was also shutting down Menshevik newspapers the very next day after seizing power. Lenin knew the power of the press. Any money he was rumored to receive from Germany at the time of his mysterious ‘sealed train’ adventure would have gone straight into the Bolshevik publishing efforts.

          1. We all know that Marx was dead and gone when the Bolshies took power, and we all know that Lenin claimed to be the ‘offspring’ of Marx.
            Did you have a point other than that all who claimed legitimacy from Marx were murderous thugs?
            We love to hear from lefty shits how capitalism is a disaster; you keep trying to do so over on that thread and do nothing other than prove you’re a lefty gas-bag full of shit.
            Try harder.

            1. Ooops.
              My mistake: You’re proving to be a lefty gas-bag on THIS thread!

            2. You actually don’t know anything about this except “Marx bad” do you?

            3. “Did you have a point other than that all who claimed legitimacy from Marx were murderous thugs?”

              Credit where it’s due, Lenin was the only politician who was willing to end the war. It was the murderous thugs like the Tsar and Kerensky who wanted to continue it.

        2. “Marxists’ propensity for violence”

          Humans have a propensity for violence. What, do “Marxists” also have hooked noses?

          Meanwhile 99% of the left in America has no guns and thinks violence can be wished away upon a Star Trek. The remaining 1%, who still don’t even kill people, are relentlessly demonized on FOX News as a threat so great, they’ll never even get to the back lines of any war.

          1. Stop being obtuse Tony and read the fucking thread: Marxists’ propensity for violence [as compared to capitalisms’].

            Not as compared to all of human history (what about Genghis Kahn?) you worthless piece of shit.

  12. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Capitalism is flawed but best suited to bring stability and prosperity to society at large.

    Capitalism without free market will result in oligarchies, and we’re kinda seeing that in America now. We’re reasonably close to a time where movie studios will digitally remove Jar Jar Binks or just simply delisting movies like Phantom Menace in the name of fighting racism. Most of the time there’s no real demand for such a move.

    Needless to say, capitalism will not last if you flood the country with state dependent individuals who favor socialism. If you’re ok with companies outsourcing jobs, becoming more contactless, and automation, then it obviously makes no sense to let in 40 thousands migrants a year.

    1. “then it obviously makes no sense to let in 40 thousands migrants a year.”

      It makes good sense if you can keep these migrants isolated and insecure, willing to do for peanuts the menial tasks the natives refuse to do. This will keep them weak and compliant. It’s only when they get together and exercise their collective strength by getting uppity, claiming to have rights etc, that they become a problem. The controversy over the presence or absence of Jar Jar Binks in a movie will seem trivial by comparison.

      1. Did you have a point other than to prove your verbal diarrhea continues, asshole?

        1. A compliant, weak, isolated workforce is more desirable than an unruly, strong and united one. I can’t state it any plainer than that.

          1. Then maybe they should wait in line with all the others and come here legally when allowed.

            Then they wouldn’t be an isolated workforce, but they’d be just another part of the overall workforce.

            & your idea that criminals should get together to try and force the government to treat them as if they didn’t break the law is the dumbest idea any criminal has ever had.

            Why not just break the law and then have a neon sign announcing the specific legal code you violated pointed at you – that combined with an airhorn going off every second for a quarter of a second which is sure to irritate anyone in buildings/homes close by – irritate them until the police arrive and arrest you of course – because you are a seriously stupid criminal.

    2. If movie studios are cleaning up their movies, I promise you it’s because there’s market demand for such. No government is forcing wokeness on them. And neither is a secret cabal of elites, or whatever you think.

      You’re not mad at socialism, you’re mad at capitalism. You’re mad at your own culture for not including you. Whatever else this country is, it is robustly capitalist. It infects every inch of culture. So if woke college lesbians are controlling culture and you’re not, that means you’re less popular than them.

      1. Fuck off, asshole.

        1. Sevo, always with le mot juste.

      2. Sorry Tony, but capitalism has been begging for cleaner versions of certain movies in order to enjoy them with their entire family. More than one company was formed to remove offending scenes or dialogue or whatever, but in all cases Hollywood refused to allow any changes at all and sued saying any changes were anti-copyright.

        So in the mostly capitalist society – Hollywood openly disregards a certain consumer base and uses the force of law to prevent cleaner versions of their to be put together and sold (even if royalties were paid).

        Your mistake is what is the catalyst forcing change & it’s quite obvious communist China society that Hollywood is bowing a knee too, not the US capitalist society.

        Idiot.

  13. What a bunch of self-serving bullshit. Nothing is easier to prove than what you assume to be true to begin with. Bowl of crap.

    Here are the real myths about capitalism.
    Myth 1: capitalism is compatible with free markets. WRONG. The data show capitalism and free markets are at odds. The most successful capitalists are those who can destroy free markets and establish their monopolies.

    Myth 2 capitalism is compatible with democracy. WRONG. The data show capitalism and democracy are at odds. Capitalism as a political system seeks to take control of power so as to favor the capitalist class, as we see happening in the USA.

    FACT: Capitalism is a snake that consumes itself
    FACT: Capitalism died in 2008.
    FACT: Capitalists like Stossel are in denial.

    Calling your rag “reason” does not mean you have clue what reason is. Losers.

    1. Hey, someone who sees through the smokescreen 🙂

      Granted I don’t think I’d go as far as you, but capitalism generally does some of what you say: it enables a small group of people to amass wealth and use that wealth to their advantage. This could be destroying markets to establish monopolies/oligopolies, or it could be buying off politicians in the form of campaign donations and buying off public approval with misleading, but legal, political ads. Bernie Sanders said it well when he said, “Congress doesn’t regulate the banks; the banks regulate Congress.” And libertarians seems to think that’s just fine; I recall a piece on InfoWars in which the author opined how great the Citizens United decision was because it protected the “free speech right” of corporations. The absurdity is palpable.

      These are flaws, though, of capitalism, rather than a market-based economy. These flaws could be rectified with regulations, but then libertarian ideologues would have a fit and make absurd claims like the person above who claims that regulations never work and only hurt people. It takes a whole lot of ignorance/blind adherence to ideology to make such demonstrably false claims.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.