main
  about us
  news
  topics
  author
  euroletter
  news from other sites
  links
 
 
 Libertarian Theory
  General
  Anarchism
  Capitalism
  Democracy
  Minarchism
  Nationalism
  Rights
  Socialism/Communism
 Economy
  General
  Austrian School
  Business Cycles
  Gold Standard
  Inflation
 Education
  General
  Private education
 Environment
  General
  Climate
  Energy
  Greenhouse effects
  "Greens"
 Government
  General
 Health
  General
  Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide
  Alcohol, Tobacco and Drugs
  Cloning
  Cryogen suspension
  Food and Medicine /Right to choose your own
  Regulation
  Health Care
 Individuals
  General
 International Relations
  General
  Development Help
  Europe and EU /Uniting Europe without the Union
  Globalising
  Migration
  Secession Right
  War on Terrorism
 Interviews
  General
 Miscellaneous
  General
 Politics
  General
 Previews
  General
 Rights
  General
  Gun Rights
  Human Rights /Emancipation
  Property Rights
  Self Defence
  Speech Freedom
  Values and Norms
 Rights, Justice
  General
  Punishment and restitution
  Punishment
  Security
  War on Drugs
 Taxes
  General
  Taxes
  Social security
  Subsidies
 Communication
  General
  Censoring
  Internet Freedom
  Privacy and Encryption
 Religion
  General
  Islam
  Internet
  Investment
  War
  Politicians
  Redistribution
  Waste
  Police
 Repression and Police State
  General
  Database State
  Torture
 Activism
  General
  Conservatism
  Unclassified
 
Today: Fri, October 31 2014  -  Last modified: April, 26 2007
 Libertarian Theory
09 July 2014
 
 
Capitalism = great, Crapitalism = disgusting
by John Stossel
 sub-topic» Capitalism

Government has no business handing out loan guarantees to companies. Corporations can pay their own way. The Agriculture Department's Market Access Program gives millions of dollars to affluent groups like the Pet Food Institute, the Wine Institute, Sunkist and Welch Foods. In return, politicians get campaign contributions. It's disgusting crapitalism.

 more» 
03 July 2014
 
 
The Avarice of Corporate Power
by David S. D'Amato
 sub-topic» Capitalism

If it seems to be too easy for we libertarians to assert that markets simply regulate themselves, consider that in fact it is competitors who are continually regulating each other. Doubtless in a free market these competitors could band together, voluntarily forming monopolistic trusts in order to squeeze consumers. But free and open competition sans coercive barriers to entry disincentives this at every turn, whereas the arbitrary power of central government agencies virtually guarantees that the politically connected will use agencies’ rule-making authority to destroy potential competitors and accordingly form cartels.

 more» 
06 June 2014
 
 
Why income inequality is really very good for us indeed
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

And class and status have never, in Britian, been entirely about money. Even today they're not. But given the alternative sets of status markers that have been used over the centuries, aristocracy, theocracy, race (useful in discussing the Saxons, Danes and Celts) wouldn't we all start to prefer that they were? That one can gain status by having proven that you are producing something that a lot of others would like to have? For that's what this capitalism lark is at root about. You can only accumulate if you're performing a community service. Which sounds like a pretty good method of assigning social status to us.

 more» 
01 June 2014
 
 
Compulsion is Not Cooperation
by Gary M. Galles
 sub-topic» Capitalism

Scarcity means competition cannot be avoided, no matter how society is organized. In capitalism—voluntary cooperation based on private property (in turn based on the principle of self-ownership)—it creates wealth out of otherwise-latent abilities in others. The key to its success is its limitation to voluntary activities, barricaded against political compulsion, because under “cooperative” decision-making, competition for political power destroys wealth and hamstrings society from vast areas of true cooperation.

 more» 
10 May 2014
 
 
Krugman in the 1 Percent
by Michael D. Tanner
 sub-topic» Capitalism

So, while Krugman enters the realm of the 1 percent, I actually see that as a very positive sign that even those who condemn the affluent and actively attempt to tax them out of existence still have the opportunity to join them. If that’s not a sign of capitalism’s mobility, I don’t know what is.

 more» 
17 April 2014
 
 
Inequality in a Crony Capitalist World
by Samuel Gregg
 sub-topic» Capitalism

In political markets, the focus is no longer upon prospering through creating, refining, and offering products and services at competitive prices. Instead economic success depends upon people’s ability to harness government power to stack the economic deck in their favor. While the market’s outward form is maintained, its essential workings are supplanted by the struggle to ensure that governments, legislators, and regulators favor you at other people’s expense. In that sense, crony capitalism certainly constitutes a form of redistribution: away from taxpayers, consumers and businesses focused on creating wealth, and towards the organized, powerful, and politically-connected.

 more» 
02 November 2013
 
 
In Praise of Capital and Free Enterprise
by The Darn-Poor Rhymer
 sub-topic» Capitalism

It may seem strange,
But every change
Just leaves as leaders
The same old bleeders.
Democracy?
Don’t bullshit me.

We’ll never fix
Damned politics;
It only works
For crooked jerks.
So, loose that fetter!
Make something better!

 more» 
28 September 2013
 
 
Corporations: Incentive to Harm
by Sima Qian
 sub-topic» Capitalism

These two different expressions of what a corporation “is” (an arm of the state, or a firm engaged in voluntary exchange) often make it difficult for right-anarchists and left-anarchists to discuss corporate structures with each other. The left often assumes that “corporation” refers to massive systems of power that dumb-down and spy on the masses, while distracting people to keep them in line. The right often assumes that “corporation” refers to a group of people doing their best to provide their customers with the goods and services that people most intensely want.

Both these stories are true.

 more» 
19 August 2013
 
 
The difference between this capitalism and this free market stuff
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

In a purely capitalist system, one that did not allow competition, there could still be that same value created: but the distribution of it would be very different indeed. Without any competition at all it would all accrue to the entrepreneurs (although we might possibly expect some goodly portion to leak through to the production labour dependent upon the level of unionisation). With competition however we find that others note the new technology (and yes, WalMart is really just a new technology for retailing) and copy it as best they can. This leads to this very different split of the benefits: the vast majority now accrues to the consumer. For the various people using this new technology must continually cut their prices as the others using this same new technology do so.

 more» 
14 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XXIII
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

The real point of economics is to struggle manfully with those very few things which must be done, shoot down in flames at least 90% of the things that are suggested we should do and then leave the rest of it, the vast majority of life, to people to do as they wish as long as they're not harming others or their right to do the same. You know, the liberal idea of free people interacting voluntarily in a free market. Capitalism's just an offshoot of the rights to private property: and one of the lessons of the experiment that was the 20th century is that we do have the data about what happens when you try to do that.

 more» 
12 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XIX
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

If you like, the market is where plans compete to see which is the best one. Government planning doesn't enter that competition so we never do find out quite how bad those government plans are. We just end up not quite as rich as we thought we were going to be or should be.

 more» 
10 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XVIII
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

Leave aside the now ritual complaint that we shouldn't be talking about the country, or the nation, but the economy, which is a very different thing. Chang avers that government planning and co-management of those large firms like GM will help them to survive in the long term. Which is entirely true, large firms can indeed co-manage government to aid in ensuring the survival of them. The way they do this is by manipulating the desire of the politicians and the bureaucrats to regulate. The burden of regulation is much easier for a large firm to carry than the same burden is for the small and snappy competitor chasing at its heels. Regulation thus becomes a wall keeping out that free market competition which is the gale behind capitalism's creative destruction.

 more» 
08 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XVI
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

You can see where I'm going with this: market processes are an endless repetition of experimentation, much like those gene mutations and mixtures. Which of these experiments will survive depends upon the environment they are tried in. Writing great smartphone apps in 1955 would not have been a path to success: in 2015 it's highly likely to be. And this is exactly why we don't want government building regulation to stop the experimentation. Precisely and exactly because we don't know what the future environment will be and thus don't know what will succeed in it. And because it's uncertainty, not risk, we cannot know: therefore we must not stop the experimentation.

 more» 
06 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XV
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

For what Chang's actually complaining about, what he's stating is keeping the poor poor, despite their admirable entrepreneurialism, is the absence of capitalism and free markets. For that's what capitalism is: a method of describing who owns productive assets. Markets are a method of exchanging things one with another, under the rule of law. It is the very absence of these things that Chang is identifying as keeping them poor: which is exactly the same as the capitalist and market case for why people are poor. They've not got the institutions that allow entrepreneurialism to flourish. They have, in short, too litle of that law, capitalism and market freedom necessary to get rich.

 more» 
04 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XIII
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

It's not the static state of being rich that makes everyone better off: it's the activity of producing what others value that makes both the producer and consumer richer. And that's why we don't want to take huge bites out of the incomes of people who are doing this: because we'd like them to be seen to be well rewarded so that others are willing to take the risks of similarly producing value that all can enjoy. After all, we know that taxing something produces less of it: thus taxing the creation of wealth will produce less wealth.

 more» 
02 June 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - XI
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

What happened to African development is an argument against Chang's policies, not one in favour of them. And I've already mentioned that I'm not sure that you can do Chang's form of directed development in a democracy. Even if (which I'll not admit anyway, but just for the sake of argument) you can do it in an authoritarian or repressive society, the political dynamic is such that you can't where the people get to vote.

 more» 
31 May 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - VIII
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

The major benefit of any productive organisation is what is produced: the benefit that people get from what the company (or co-op or individual) pumps out. This is known as the consumer surplus and this really ought to be known even at Cambridge. The benefit of Google is not cushy jobs for engineers, nor the lack of tax revenue in the UK, the benefit of Google's existence is that we all get to use Google. Whether VW's R&D is in Wolfsburg or not matters very much less than that we all have the chance to drive VWs.

 more» 
29 May 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - VI
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

This is an example of how Chang continually conflates capitalism and markets. They're really just not the same thing. They might work well together but capitalism is a description of who gets to own the productive asserts: the capitalists. Markets describe a method of exchange. These simply are not the same thing at all. Indeed, we can have capitalism without markets (the Soviet system was state captialism without markets) and we can have various forms of socialism with markets (Tito's Yugoslavia was an attempt at this and we can certainly have socialist entities within markets: Mondragon, the Co Op and John Lewis come to mind), but it is vital to keep in mind that the two are descriptions of different things, not just interchangeable names for the same socio-economic system.

 more» 
27 May 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - IV
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

I do agree that so far the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet. Which is really rather why we want to be promoting that socio-economic system that came up with that very washing machine, no?

 more» 
25 May 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - III
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

We should be rather harsher than that too. Everywhere, anywhere, that has been roughly free market, roughly capitalist, for the past century is so stinking rich that the bus driver does get paid 50 times what a better one in India gets paid. That's actually the point of the entire socio-economic structure: it makes even bus drivers rich by any global or historical standard.

 more» 
23 May 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - II
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

Most growth in the economy, and almost all employment growth, comes from new entrants into the market. It is small firms starting and growing, old firms failing and leaving, which changes the marketplace. Yes, of course, we can all think of examples of the opposite: I can never remember whether it is Ericsson or Nokia that started out making gumboots and switched to mobile phones. But this is very much the exception. It is the start ups that revolutionise the economy to all of our great benefit.

Once we accept that then the very idea of trying to insist upon the long term viability of a specific company becomes a nonsense. We want to be able to increase and grow the economy into the future, yes we most certainly do. But there's no particular reason why the corporate entity called Rover, or Rolls Royce, or Glencore, should survive long term. Indeed, there's good reason why we'd be quite happy for firms to die out at some point. That point being when their particular skills and advantages are no longer appropriate to the demands of the rest of us in the economy.

 more» 
21 May 2013
 
 
23 things we're telling you about capitalism - I
by Tim Worstall
 sub-topic» Capitalism

We free marketeers do though have a set of hard and fast rules. They're at the heart of what classical liberalism is all about. Best summed up in Mill's freedom to swing the fist ending where the nose of another begins. This does give is hard rules. Subject to one exception, markets are the default: except where the exercise of a market right interferes with the rights of another. I cannot claim a free market in someone else's boots but I most certainly can in my own. I cannot insist that someone else work a certain set of hours: but I can indeed insist that he be free to determine his own.

 more» 
25 April 2012
 
 
The two capitalisms: Free market vs. corporatism
by Garry Reed
 sub-topic» Capitalism

For a while, as government intruded ever deeper and more destructively into what was once a relatively free market, so-called conservatives who wanted to pretend that this was the good form of capitalism labeled it "the mixed economy."

But since the mixture consists of freedom and compulsion the compulsion always wins. Hence, corporatism.

 more» 
30 January 2012
 
 
BBC's Biased Coverage of Capitalism
by Tibor R. Machan
 sub-topic» Capitalism

“As an economic system capitalism has nothing to do with responsibility,” says the Marxist sage, yet this is perverse, uninformed, given that trust and being responsible to fulfill one’s promises is essential to free market capitalism. Indeed, one reason that that system works pretty well when uncorrupted by state interference is that those who fail to be responsible do not flourish in it unless favored with privileges they haven’t earned.

 more» 
27 January 2012
 
 
Moral and responsible capitalism
by Eamonn Butler
 sub-topic» Capitalism

Politicians pursue their party interests by doing down others, but capitalists can serve their own interests only by serving other people's. If they deliver excellent products, services and value to customers, they will prosper. If they deliver bad value, they will fall to the competition.

 more»