The label of "capitalism" came from the merchants of 14th & 15th century Europe (I may be off by a century here & there). The basic concept is using capital to consolidate resources and then have the masses become wage laborers, all the in goal of perpetually growing profits. I point out this key detail because unlike socialism or communism, capitalism did not start out as a theory or philosophy, but as an actual practice. In regards to seeing raw capitalism, Industrial revolution is when raw capitalism flourished. A lot of laissez faire preaching from those times really has to do with the fact that the capitalists wanted the government to stop bugging them about fairness & morality and let them make their money at any social cost. The reality is that capitalism without bounds does end up in a monopoly/oligopoly. What you see nowdays with heavy government involvement is actually driven by capitalism. It's just corporations working their lobbying power in favor of growing & preserved profits. Certainly less brutal than blowing up & murdering your competitors, like Rockefeller used to do.
I like this explanation very much. I don't know how true it is, but I like it very much. One thing that doesn't quite ring true is that in "The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit of Capitalism", ethics (as least in the form of moral ethics) is supposedly what drove Capitalism once it was freed from "guilt": "...In the book, Weber argues that Puritan ethics and ideas influenced the development of capitalism. Religious devotion, however, is usually accompanied by a rejection of worldly affairs, including the pursuit of wealth and possessions. Why was that not the case with Protestantism? Weber addresses this apparent paradox in the books...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism My biggest problem with Capitalism is that while time is money, not everyone's time is the same time and hence not the same money. The people in power rationalize this by "supply/demand" and "the going rate" for a given work - not how important the work is or how much entropy it reduces, which imo is the correct way to value work. So we have daytraders that are capable of making orders of magnitude more than say a doctor, or a programmer which I detail in this thread: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168176&highlight=financial+programmers or any number of other important professions. In theory the market prices jobs, but in fact the "market" is in collusion to keep most jobs cheap, or at least people are convinced that someone that is an investment banker at GS is worth more than say Bjarne Stroustrup.
I suggest that the traditional wealthy cheerleaders of Capitalism really mean to say - Capitalism for everyone else but me - so I can more easily screw you. JP Morgan hated true capitalism. He hated competition - he felt it was destructive and killed margins. He was all for the consolidation of industries during the Gilded Age/Robber Baron era. I believe in capitalism - what we refer to in the modern era - or at least the spirit of it. But I am also realistic in its real-life unfortunate practice - in that the elites always prefer capitalism when it's convenient for them, and capitalism always for everyone else. Why did free trade only negatively affect the salaries of the plebs and not the CEOs? My reference to the paleolithic era is the closest I can come up with a "pristine" version of capitalism. Everyone, no matter what their wealth was - feared the saber-tooth tiger (failure). :eek: Slavery was difficult without a government to enforce it. There was no money to be manipulated. And no, I don't suggest we go back to those times either.
I would add to your criticism a line from a famous movie: - Piper Laurie as "Sarah Packard" People will cite Bill Gates, or Warrent Buffet, or the Google or Facebook or Twitter founders or several many other successes in a free market economy. But few will tell you that monetary success has less to do with hard work and talent than with luck and being in the right place at the right time. "We" as a society are rewarding people based on how much money they can generate for corporations, in particular the management of these corporations that does almost none of the actual work. Then like suckers, we buy their stock and we think we are associating ourselves with success: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180234&highlight=Investing+Catechism when all we are doing is perpetuating our own demise by giving other people and chance control of our future. The human genome pool of "fittest genes" of the future will look like a bunch of extreme people that have been optimized to take advantage of some niche.
The real tragedy is that people don't know how powerful they are, in concert. An ant farm can take down an elephant. The powers that be love division, whether it be a locked goverment, or to polarize people along religious, political, race or other means. Then the numbers cannot organize in concert and change the rules that so oppress them.
Does not the verity of your statement depend on the meaning of "free market"? Does it mean, as a textbook would have it, a market with free, unfettered competition? Or does it mean, as a Capitalist would have it, that one is free from government interference while at the same time being free to use government to one's own ends, including stifling competition, achieving a monopoly, or forming a cartel?
True Capitalism grew in USA in the twenties in the absence of the liquor industry. Prohibition. The Mafia got rich. Ironically made by do-gooding anti-drink people. With evangelist enthusiasm they banned alchohol sales not realizing the monsters they were creating. Much of the anti crime efforts of the 20th century was then spent trying to eradicate these true capitalist mobsters. To kill for money was no problem for them. Money became the new God's purpose by ANY means. No thanks Money at that price stinks
capitalism means denying sick people healthcare, because they make more profits this way. capitalism is just about profits. get it, nothing else. True capitalism is there about making the most money. If they could make more moeny with oligrachy they will do it. Anti-trust laws are therefore anti-capitalistic. USA is anti-capitalistic!!:eek: :eek:
Hmm, not so sure about that. I think he embraced. It's a natural progress of capitalism to grow a monopoly. Because the whole concept of allowing competition goes against the growing profits goal. What you're thinking of is free market ideal which is a pipedream.
Not sure about the rest but Gates has actually stated that a big part of his success was being in right place at the right time.