Capitalism: Is it Working?

[Something completely different]

Sorry to snip so much, but I just didn't disagree much with what you're saying, so I skipped to what I found more contraversial. I appreciate your courtesy, by the way.

Perfectly fine, and I think we should try to find ways of keeping this as short as possible anyway.

I would think India would be an example of a democracy that didn't lead to wealth at first because so many Indians opposed open markets. Many African countries had similar resistance due to a similar experience with colonialism. It's understandable, but was one factor in holding them back. I'm glad the wind has shifted in that regard.

I wouldnt say that, I would say that class society and the social structures in which it is generaly accepted that the poor have to be poor also played a role. On that base, capitalism couldnt spread wealth as liberterians would have predicted. What capitalism does to a country depends more on the structures within the country than on capitalism itself.

I said 'shut down the factories'. Their economies would merely have gone on as before, just like in other countries that didn't industrialize. The availability of cheap labor combined with new technology and enough wealth to invest to implement it is what made building those factories so attractive in the first place, investment happens when the gain is perceived to be greater than the risk. Once factories in an agrarian economy are established and become the norm, the perceived risk of investing in something so new goes down, which means the gains can be lower and still attract investment. Of course today, most of the technological development has already occurred and it's easy for investors in more developed countries to invest in projects in less developed countries; so if we're smart, getting someone from subsistence farmer to fairly compensated employee could be much less traumatic than it was for us.

Still didnt explain why you think the early workers movements would have shut down the factories.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding me. That the powerful won't give away power unless they feel they have to was my point. Although I suppose military takeovers of Turkey are also an exception; they have always returned the country to civilian rule once they were satisfied it was abiding by the country's constitutional provisions again.

agree.

Nothing would please me more than Africa being able to avoid the 'cheap labor step'. Its people have certainly paid their dues in other ways.

and it is the way africa is going, since most african countries fear nothing more than becoming a sweatshop base, which many considere (maybe wrongly) a step back into the colonial past.

Nothing, but in my defense, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to argue with that point. The only type of government necessary for capitalism is one in which people are allowed to own businesses and conduct commerce, so a certain degree of economic freedom is vital; but that doesn't necessarily translate into civil rights.

agree.

When they get around to deciding they want them. It isn't automatic. African democracies resisted global trade for many decades, fearful for their autonomy. 'Free' is always relative when it comes to markets, but clearly countries that aren't truly democracies (although they usually have 'democratic' in the full name of the country) have also effectively implemented (or maybe more accurately, 'allowed') market economies.

African countries also resisted democracy for ages, in fact most African countries still are authoritarian. Countries which enjoy the benefits such as South Africa and Nambia have only recently turned to democracy, and one should not forget that some african countries werealso exploited by that economic system. Not all african countries resisted the free market.

Good points. Perhaps it was a coincidence that the end of his regime came after he instituted significant market reforms. 'After' doesn't mean 'because' and all that.

I dont think so. What difference does it make of you work for a factory owned by local buisnessmen or the goverment in a brutal regime - or a factory owned by a foreign company in a brutal regime?

Yes, on land provided by the government, on the backs of extremely poor immigrants. I think it's a sign of the brutality of the exploitation of and hatred toward Chinese that despite millions of them immigrating in the 1800s; they make up a small fraction of our population in comparison to the descendants of people that were literally bought and traded as slaves. Without researching it, my guess is that a major factor was that Chinese men were so disproportionately represented that they couldn't grow their population significantly.

agree.

They were pretty non-interventionist when it came to spending money on keeping poor people they subjugated alive, but very interventionist in imposing the systems they preferred on them.

All of Europes poor depended on potatoes back then. And Scotland also suffered from the famine (which is often forgoten) and they werent catholic.

To me these examples simply show that if you give the free market an absolute free hand - it will create havok.

Remember - the Indian famine aswell as the Irish famine were mainly man made - with the deaths being preventable if the goverments of british India and Ireland wouldnt havechosen a policie which regarded the free market to be the solution of all social problems.

They had the same root: A ruling class dictating how millions of people without true representation should live. Perhaps the supreme virtue of democracy, given how little other rights matter when you're starving, is that suffering people can make their rulers pay without a bloody revolution. That we routinely change our leadership without bloodshed is something feudal societies could scarce believe.

The famines of India and Ireland were not made so horrible by goverments dictating them to starve. Or goverments interducing policies which caused a shortage of food.

They were made so horrible by policies which made the goverment powerless, whilest relying on the dream that private institutions would solve the problem.
That it absolutly the opposite of a powerfull class instituting a way of life.
It is what a liberterian would want - the goverment not getting involved.

Which is why the central theme of societal evolution is arguably method of governance rather than economic system.

agree.

It doesn't need interest groups to have power out of proportion to the interests they serve. A corporation with good lobbyists can cripple a less-connected competitor with discriminatory regulation. A lobby like the NRA can control debate on its single issue. Lobbies owning senators is not a virtue of democracy, it is a disease afflicting it.

agree.

But would you agrre that interest groups should exist in an make their case in a transparent manner which informs the public of their actions?

I'm not against interest groups. I'm against them having improper influence, which a system in which election campaigns cost millions of dollars and are financed with donations is prone to.

agree. and my previous reply made irrelevant.

That was an oversight, not a claim that oppressive regimes and capitalism cannot coexist.

cleared.

You are correct about that. Capitalism on its own can only solve problems of inefficient resource allocation.

agree.

Fair enough, and although I'm more of a 'pragmatic liberaltarian' than an ideologically pure Libertarian, I'm close enough to understand why you might think I follow the usual dogmas.

good to find a common ground.

I don't think it does either. All incentive produces is effort toward a particular goal. That's a valuable thing to know how to harness, whether you're a hero or a villain.

agree.

It will be abused, just like any other tool. But China is still getting wealthier.

but as meantioned by both you and me: wealth=/=moral right.



I guess we have found a common ground on almoust everything.