About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 27, 2006 7:38am by David Farrar

How did capitalism become a dirty word?

A good article in The Telegraph on all the anti-capitalist forces out there.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment62

Uncategorized
Uncategorized

Related Stories

Dim Post on why Marxism failed
All Popes are anti-capitalist
Capitalism saving the world

Comments (62)

Login to comment or vote

x

No other site sums up the ignorance of the Left than these three/four posts on the evils of capitalism

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 8:44am
MCMC

Ask neoliberalism, it might know.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 8:47am
James

“Ask neoliberalism, it might know”

No such thing.There is Liberalism…plain and simple.What’s commomnly called Liberalism here is actually Socialism.

Liberalism means free markets which means free people.It means secure property rights,non coercion,freedom of speech and thought.Gosh! no wonder people like MCMC are afraid of it! ;-0
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 9:17am
hlm

I will listen to the Church of England on economics the moment they let a group of economists determine their theology. Economics is a process of understanding this world and the Anglicans are very bad at understanding this world. Considering their entire industry is based on myths, fairy tales, fiction and falsehoods I would have a hard time taking them seriously about anything. And if church attendance figures are anything to go by not even most Anglicans take them seriously.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 9:25am
Rocket Boy

I might try something ususal for this blog and actually start a debate about the facts.
Dealing with the first paragraph of the article what is wrong with a salary cap for European footballers? The NRL has a salary cap and the NZRFU effectively controls player salaries by being the only employer (a monopoly) and using restraint of trade (if you play overseas you can not play for the All Blacks) and no one complains that that is ‘anti-capitalist’.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 9:25am
TheGhostOfCadmus

speaking of anti capitalist –

http://www.amirtofangsazan.blogspot.com/

Make your day

net lynching of the year

seriously NSFW

I AM

THEGHOSTOFCADMUS
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:07am
James

” and no one complains that that is ‘anti-capitalist’.”

Thats because it isn’t.They are consentual arrangements between traders….the property owners of the clubs and leagues on one hand and the players on the other.All have agreed to the set conditions and work to contracts accordingly.The property owners have the right to set any conditions they like over how things will work regarding their property…players have the property right in their skills and can accept or regect the owners conditions and try to seek more agreeable terms by negotation or moving else where.As long as theres freedom to trade alls good.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:11am
Logix

How did capitalism become a dirty word?

Much the same way as religion has for many people. And like religion, capitalism is a powerful and very useful thing, but like all such things, it has both uses and abuses according to the inclinations of it’s practitioners.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:16am
side show bob

I find it somewhat ironic that those in power in this country spend alot of time pretending they are God’s great gift to capitalism only to spend more time trying to lower the wealth of it’s citizens through excessive taxation in the belief that we should be all equal.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:23am
Le Clerc

Rocket Boy Two words
Bulldogs / Warriors
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:45am
James

State inforced “equality” can only occur through the destruction of liberty.Free men are never equal and Equal men are never free…Wealth and production occur when those with unequal abilities race ahead of their fellow man and take risks.

We are all made richer by their being free to do so and should leave them to it.the so called “poor” of our time in NZ are living a lifestyle of oppulace undreamed of by our ancestors and its all due to freedom and Capitalism.

How much more better off could they be if socialists stopped preventing Capitalism from REALLY creating…?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:49am
rightwinger

What we need to do is smash the anti-capitalist Unions. Once the Unions are gone we can work on Labour.

Then freedom and Capitalism will prevail.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 11:47am
Danyl Mclauchlan

What we need to do is smash the anti-capitalist Unions . . . Then freedom and Capitalism will prevail.

Yes – if you take away peoples rights to organise and negotiate then freedom is BOUND to florish.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:14pm
Logix

Actually what we REALLY need to do is exterminate all the rentiers, parasitical speculators, money-lenders, National Party voters and all the other greed-driven gougers on the right. Then liberty and human dignity will prevail.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:16pm
David Baigent

Danyl Mclauchlan and Logix, You need at least two brain cells each, to get some form of balance – better still just get a life..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:24pm
Nichlemn

Yawn.

Step 1: Statement made.
Step 2: Right-winger response.
Step 3: Left-winger response.
Step 4: Right-winger attacks via ad hominem.
Step 5: Left-winger attacks via ad hominem.
Step 6: Continue until we can do it on another topic. Only the discussion still remains.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:36pm
Logix

Yawn.

Note carefully Step 3. Right-winger introduced the “ad-hominen”.

Steps 4 & 5 are in fact left-wingers tugging on right-wingers swinging dick.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:40pm
mark

“Yesterday, a correspondent on Radio 4’s Today programme described a proposal coming from the European Union to put a cap on the salaries of footballers. He treated this as though it were probably a good thing. Not the merest hint was there that this was interference with a market and therefore likely – like most interferences in markets – to have unintended, damaging effects.”
Except that many other sporting clubs like the NBA and NFL have salary caps, and have grown their ‘piece of the pie’ as a result. Player salaries are larger *and* significantly more franchises are profitable.
http://www.andrewsstarspage.com/CBA/12-21cba.htm

“We need a culture check here. A society that widely regards capitalism as bad will, in due course, destroy it. Incredibly, it seems necessary to assert afresh that capitalism is the goose that lays the golden eggs – the foundation of the extraordinary wealth we now enjoy, compared with all previous eras of world history.”
Really? The extraordinary wealth that the first world now enjoys comes from technology and colonialism, not capitalism.
http://www.afbis.com/analysis/neo-colonialism.html

“They teach that capitalists destroy rainforests, insidiously control American foreign policy and spread the human vices of greed and selfishness. Anti-capitalism is now the subtext of history and geography lessons, as well as politics, economics and sociology. Capitalism is said to have given rise to slavery. ”
But, but, but, this is all *true*. Market forces call for bottom line profits to be considered before ethical considerations. Anything less is unwanted government regulations, a stifling of the market in it’s ‘proper’ free state….. not.

“The state is depicted as a hero that has tempered the cruelty of the beast with laws, regulations and interventions.”
Again, this is true. While there needs to be a balance between too much and not enough regulation, the author appears to have an unspoken assumption that laws, regulations and interventions are bad, and completely unregulated capitalism is best. Hogwash.

“What is the biggest benefit that the relatively poor have experienced over the past two centuries? It is surely the terrific reduction in the cost of food. Two centuries ago, food was the biggest part in a family’s budget. It was hard for a poor family to get enough to eat. If there was a shortage, there could be a famine, resulting in thousands of deaths. Even in the 1920s, people on average spent a third of their income on food.”
Technology and colonialism had nothing to do with it. It was all Capitalism. Oh wait, the third world exports food to the first world (colonialism, third world debt), and then we turn it into value-added overprocessed crap via technology. How lucky we are that noone, even the people in the third world, suffer from famine since 1920…..

“Now they spend only a tenth. Look at any chart of the price of the basic foodstuffs, such as wheat, barley and milk, and you will see almost continuous and deep falls. What has caused this massive benefit to the poor? A series of government regulations? A good-looking politician with an easy smile and a “vision”? No. Capitalism.”
How great it is that capitalism does this for us. For everyone. Even people in the third world, who thanks to the marvelous beneficience of capitalism now only spend 10% of their income on food……
http://allafrica.com/stories/200605190813.html
Or not.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Travel/Def_Third_World.html

“No single individual did it. Thousands, or millions, did it. They were not directed by any central agency. They just operated in a capitalist system. They invented farm machinery that replaced many men and therefore made food much cheaper. Farmers deployed these machines. Others created ships that could carry grain cheaply, quickly from faraway lands where food was grown more cheaply. Others still distributed the food in ever more cost-efficient ways, by rail and by road on newly created and deployed trains and lorries.”
While the theory of Supply and Demand arose as part of modern economic theory, the forces described by the theory are present in every economic system, not just capitalism. The forces of supply and demand are not synonymous with free-market capitalism. You can accept one without the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

“They did this, each of them living his own separate life in his own undirected way. They transformed the situation. The poor were given food in abundance. They were given it at a price they could easily afford. Shortages, hunger and famine became history. That is what capitalism did. To sneer at it is to sneer at the abolition of hunger in this country.”
Wow! What a utopia. Shortages, hunger and famine became history *in the first world* because of the huge benefits extracted from the lucky colonies, plus technology coupled with cheap energy (read: oil) making it ever cheaper to do ‘work’.

“This has been, perhaps, capitalism’s greatest achievement. But that is just the beginning. Capitalism achieved a similar feat in clothing. Two centuries ago, many people had clogs on their feet. Clothing was another major expense for the poor. Nye Bevan, as a child, threw an inkwell at his teacher because the man made fun of a boy whose family could afford only one pair of shoes between the boy and his brother.”
Now everyone in the whole world can comfotably wear clothes produced in sweatshops in China…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweatshop
http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/
http://www.corpwatch.org/section.php?id=108
http://www.globalexchange.org/economy/corporations/

“Even in my own lifetime, I have seen the normal length of holidays rise from one or two weeks to four or five weeks. Foreign travel that was unknown for most working people two centuries ago is now commonplace. Did government direction make this possible? Of course not.”
Did government make longer holidays possible, and legislate the 40 hour working week?
http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/employment-legislation/employment-guidance/page14232.html
Do the champions and proponents of ‘the free market’ lobby hard against any and all increases in holiday and overtime benefits? “Of course not”

“Why does the system work? Because it provides incentives and motivation. If you invent something, you may get fame and fortune. ”
This part of Capitalism is good. There are some inherent truths in capitalism, and the idea that hard work and innovation shold be rewarded is one of thim.
However. this is a far cry from saying that unregulated free market capitalism is the holy grail of economic systems.

“If you supply food or cars cheaper, you get more customers. Simple enough. Provide a good product or service at a low price and you have a business. That simple logic means capitalism tends to produce good products and services at better prices.”
Ethics? What’s that? All that matters is that the consumer gets a product at a quality they are happy with, and at a price they like. Let’s skip past the tired old chestnuts of oil, prostitution and arms (the three biggest global industries). Let’s look at capitalism without ethics as it applies to one of the seven fundamental forces of the universe, coffee:
http://www.teaandcoffee.net/0102/special.htm

“Tens of millions died under communist rule in China. And after all the oppression and suffering, there was still no equality. There was the privileged ruling class with, in Russia’s case, special dachas in the country and road lanes in town. Imposing equality is not an easy ride. It is oppressive and doomed to failure.”
See, we’re better than Communist China! They tried to have equality and failed. It can’t be done. And we’re not trying to address equality, because it opresss people making money (the best kind of people) and is doomed to failure……

“Capitalism, meanwhile, has claims, at the least, to reducing inequality over time. The inequality was enormous when George III was sitting on his gilded throne in 1806, with thousands of servants and farm workers and other underlings at his beck and call, while elsewhere in the country were those who could barely find enough to eat and, in some cases, died of hunger.”
Now, those dying of hunger live in the war-torn parts of the world, and we don’t have to see tham every day. Out of sight, out of mind. Problem solved. The energy source of farm labour today (oil) is much cheaper than labourers or horses, even if you use many more kilojoules to achieve the same output. Plus, it will last forever…..
http://www.peakoil.org/

“Nowadays, more than nine out of 10 young people have mobile phones, 99 per cent of households have colour televisions, most households have cars. Yes, the rich are still with us. But the contrast in financial wealth has been greatly reduced over the long term. That was not due to any government, let alone a deliberate attempt to promote equality. It was achieved by capitalism.”
Yay for the first world. Yay for technology. Yay for colonialism (and third world debt). We have a wonderful life, and we owe it all to Capitalism.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:43pm
Ben Wilson

Capitalism became a dirty word when it lost its right to refer to mixed economies and became synonymous with an extreme position of minimal statism. Socialism went through the same vilification when it became synonymous with communism.

But both words could equally be applied to most developed nations. They are both capitalist and socialist at the same time, since workers don’t own the means to production, but the state does protect the weakest members from the extremes of poverty. It’s been a successful mix, lamented only by the hardcore on each end of the spectrum.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 12:44pm
James

“Capitalism became a dirty word when it lost its right to refer to mixed economies….”

eh?…. More detail please Ben.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 1:35pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

More detail please Ben.

Try reading the end of the sentence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 2:30pm
James

…..”and became synonymous with an extreme position of minimal statism.”

It still makes no sense.As to the “extreme” (ie logical and consistent) position of minimal statism thats just silly.You can’t have a Capitalist system without minimal Government.The latter allows the former. As John Stuart Mill said..

…”Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being ‘pushed to an extreme’; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case.”…

A “mixed economy” is one where the stagnant trappings of Socialism are enterwined with and hold back Capitalism from working as it should.It’s trying to balance that which is creative and moral,Capitalism, with that which is immoral and destructive,Socialism.Capitalism has no need of socialism to temper its harsh effects as some like to belive.There is nothing for good to gain in a compromise with evil, only evil can proper in an such bargin.

Capitalism rewards those who produce and trade and enrich their fellow humans lives…it gives nothing to those who have created or have nothing to trade.Capitalisms own feedback loops (ie free people in charge of how their money will be spent) ensure “justice” is done far faster and more accuratly than any amount of fat fingered State bumbeling does.Capitalism allows free people to help their fellow man as they see fit without the red tape and coercion of the State.

This is why power trippers, moochers and looters are to be found in the pro socialist camp.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 3:56pm
James

Opps!…Should have been..”have NOT created”… ;-0
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 4:10pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Capitalism has no need of socialism to temper its harsh effects as some like to belive.There is nothing for good to gain in a compromise with evil, only evil can proper in an such bargin.

Is it me, or does James sound like he hasn’t been laid in a really long time . . ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 4:49pm
Ben Wilson

James, you sound like a true believer.

To say you have a logical and consistent position as an argument for what is actually an extreme position has been a popular technique for philosophers for millenia. It has never made them right.

If you want to define capitalism as a minimal state, and refuse to talk to anyone about it without acting like some robot who only understands one way of using a word, fine. But it doesn’t win any arguments at all, since the connection between your definitions and your premises and conclusions is still as shaky as it ever has been in this kind of discussion.

Your post is simply assertions without the slightest justification.

My statements were about public discourse, your’s are about your private definitions. I hope you see the difference, or this debate is going to spiral nowhere like so many debates with true believers.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 5:07pm
Logix

James,

In some 100% unrestrained capitalist fantasy world, there is nothing to stop one person owning…everything. It is the observed nature of capitalism to concentrate wealth… after all in such a system capital is itself the sole and only good, and the sole and only source of income…therefore in the long run all capital must inevitably be controlled by one person or more likely …one corporation.

Capitalism is an efficient tool for optimising short-term economic concerns, but it is a very inefficient in the long-term because the large majority of transactions in such a system only take account of immediate and local concerns. Capitalism says nothing about the planet’s environment, it does not care a jot about the equitable distribution of wealth, and it has nothing to say about the finite resources of the planet.

The very home of capitalism, the USA is also the nation which imposes the most stringent social controls on the operation of the market with raft of complex laws, auditing, and enforcement tools used to restrain the power of the capitalist corporation. Much of what you perceive as anti-capitalism is really opposition to the immense powers weilded by the modern global corporates. It is not the capitalism of Adam Smith’s hypothetical “free market” of many small roughly equal sized sellers trading with many small roughly equal sized buyers that is at fault, rather it is power that acrues to players in the market whose size and wealth access to them asymmetric power in those markets. Capitalism has no principles to address the uses to which that power are put. Indeed one of the first uses to which all large corporates put their power, is to limit the actions of the “free market” in order to protect their power. In modern term, “free market” really means “free to do whatever WE want”.

In fact there never has been, nor ever will be a true capitalist free market. All markets throughout history are managed by the powerful elites to protect their own wealth and positions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 5:39pm
mark

Logix, well put.

The posts of Jame son the other hand, remind me of the movie Starship Trooper, which was a great great satire.

I can’t tell if James believes what he says or is satirising the position.
“It’s trying to balance that which is creative and moral,Capitalism, with that which is immoral and destructive,Socialism.”
and
[i]Capitalisms own feedback loops (ie free people in charge of how their money will be spent) ensure “justice” is done far faster and more accuratly than any amount of fat fingered State bumbeling does.[/i]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 6:27pm
James

Capitalism is where the means of production are owned by private individuals for the purpose of creating profit…what don’t you understand Ben Wilson? Thats been the definition since year dot.From that there are logicaly devined abstractions regarding rights,laws and other co existing conditions that must accompany Capitalism for it to be Capitalism.Playing silly word games by trying to redefine Capitalism and then attacking the straw man you have created is laughable.

Danyl….if you can’t rebutt the point I made why the silly ad hominem attack…? try again son.

Logix…Capitalism in its true sense is nothing like you have tried to paint.What you have done is reuse all the silly Socialist smears that have been well debunked over the last two hundred years or so as some kind of new attack….Im laughing but insulted at the same time..The corporates are coming! ohhhh hold me someone…. I thought you were smarter than to pedal that silly anti globalistion tosh.

Mark….ahhhh your point was…? Capitalism is the only moral social and economic system,prove its not.Socialism is in perect accordance with the actions we call criminal….rape, robbery, murder etc.All require violence against an unconsenting other to achieve their ends…can any of you disprove that…?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 6:55pm
Logix

Capitalism is where the means of production are owned by private individuals for the purpose of creating profit.

And at what point have any of us said otherwise? It is not us attacking capitalism, or claiming that it should be dismantled. I have no problem with capitalism as defined above.

But to claim that the capitalist corporation is some kind of innately benign engine of human goodness that has been the innocent victim of vile socialist smears, is to completely ignore the immense range and scope of laws that developed countries have in place to control them. If capitalism were some kind of “pure good” as you seem to believe, then there would be no need for such laws.

Or do I need to spell out a list of corporate malfeasance and convictions…starting with Skilling and “Kenny-Boy”…and working backwards?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 8:28pm
Holly Golightly

First of all I think it is necessary to define capitalism in the clearest words you can, as it means many different things to many diferent people, if we cant define this then how can we define how it has become negative or positive.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 9:22pm
Ben Wilson

James, what is laughable is your attempt to argue. You say your definition of capitalism is “where the means of production are owned by private individuals for the purpose of creating profit”. I don’t really have any problem with that definition since it backs up my points completely – that most modern countries are capitalist to some extent. Your definition does not include anything about a ‘minimal state’. This is a modern and rather extremist theory held only by a small proportion of the general supporters of capitalism.

You must either accept this, or accept that there are almost no capitalist countries. Perhaps there are some fuxored third world shitholes where the government is basically a gang of thugs looking after themselves, and everyone else is ‘free to be enslaved’. I don’t really know what your model is, perhaps it’s completely theoretical?

As for logically devined (defined? Hard to tell given your semimystical attachment to the concepts you propound) abstractions regarding rights, laws and coexisting conditions, how do they unfold from the concept of ownership of the means of production by private individuals? Is there no possibility for collective ownership? Does that mean corporations are not capitalists? Is the government not a collection of individuals?

I’m inclined to agree with Mark that James is taking the mickey.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:04pm
James

Logix…laws protecting rights and property are perfectly valid.That is after all is why Government is a nessessary evil.Just as you need a referee in rugby so too do you need a government in society.But Government has expanded into areas it was never meant to causing all sorts of warped and damaging results.If Government simply exists to protect our individual rights there is peace and prosperity…however if Government tries to make us all equal in outcome or material it will cause stagnation and poverty as a result.To make us all equal Goverment has to treat us all differently…and thats a sure fire road to tryanny and disaster.

As to your list of corporate melfeasnace it pales in comparison to the destruction, corruption and death caused by big Government.Business did not kill over 100 million people in the 20th century….Governments did.

I never claimed Capitalists were angels but the Capitalist system punishes those who act in an immoral and anti human way while rewarding those who act morally and are benevolant to their fellow man…if they don’t they lose business and their profits suffer….the feed back loops of the free market in action.

Capitalism is mans natural system of social cooperation…its what happens when people are left free to trade with each other.Money,law,finance…all evolved with no central planning as people dealt with each other.Evolution is as natural to us in commerce and socialising as it is in the way we evolved as a species….we reject centrally planned creationism as a silly and unscientific theory to explain how we got here…why support it in spite of the facts of our dealings with each other and how we prosper and grow?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:20pm
Ben Wilson

James, the ability to centrally plan an economy evolved too, as did nuclear physics. Neither would have been possible without billions of years of evolution. Your statement that capitalism is natural is complete bunk. It is one possible system, invented by man, that many times has failed spectacularly. There is nothing more natural or perfect about it than planned economics. That’s mystical thinking.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 10:39pm
James

“Does that mean corporations are not capitalists? Is the government not a collection of individuals?

What stuns me Ben is how you can argue a stirring case for drug legalization on one thread and yet ask the most stupid unthinking questions here…

Corporations are just people acting together in collective action to attain values that they desire as individuals…did I really need to say that?…jeez!There is no conflict between one person or one hundred creating a business and trading…the same principles apply.

“From that there are logicaly devined abstractions regarding rights,laws and other co existing conditions that must accompany Capitalism for it to be Capitalism.”…

What was so hard to understand Ben..? logiclly there are abstractions that are DEVINED from the facts of Capitalisms nature and whats required for it to work that lead to nessessary conditions regarding the size and function of Government …that is small government keeping out of the way…got it?

There are plenty of mixed economies and the degree to which they allow Capitalism and free trade are mirrored in how rich and prosperous they are…funny that.The least Capitalist countries are also the poorest and most needy….not so funny as real people suffer for their Goverments folly.

“..As for logically devined (defined? Hard to tell given your semimystical attachment to the concepts you propound) abstractions regarding rights, laws and coexisting conditions, how do they unfold from the concept of ownership of the means of production by private individuals?”

Sigh!….Ben, if people own property does it not follow that their right to do so and control its use flows as an insepparable colollary from that first fact…? If not then there there can be no law…law after all is based on protecting that which must exist prior to the law…rights.You don’t creat laws to give man rights, you create laws to protect those rights man has already due to his nature as a human being.

If a fish by its nature must swim in water to live is it not logically impossible to deny that the fish is right to seek and use water where it can…? nature forbids it any other option.It is what it is…the same logic applys to man and his nature.We are beings that use reason and abstraction as our life support system…Thinking is our means of survival, acting on the conclusions of that thought is what determines if we live or die…do you deny that this is so?

Capitalism is the only social system consistent with the facts of mans nature…. that he is a reasoning being who lives and grows by applying his mind to the facts of the objectiive reality he lives in and uses those things he has identified as resources by a process of thought that only humans..as far as we know, are able to preform. We are the only species that can undertake abstract thought…which allows us to build things in our minds before creating them in reality.

As part of that process he acknowledges that all human beings by virtue of being human like him must also have the same nature and therefore the same rights as him…no more or less.Therefore to prosper and grow he must respect this fact in regard to all people as its in his own self interest to do so…He realises that peaceful trade and non coercive interaction with others will get him what he wants quicker and with less cost and difficultly than any other possible means and so we arrive at Free market Capitalism as the only moral and logical system of human interaction for rational men.All other methods have been tried and ended in mass death and misery…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 11:04pm
James

Ok Ben …so stump up with a system that has created more prosperity for all its people and has cost less blood and waste than capitalism..
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 11:06pm
hlm

So far I see debate without substance except for a few vain attempt by James to explain his position most other posts are merely insults or conclusions devoid of evidence. We do get silliness such as the requirement to smash the unions. If union membership is voluntary (and that is the key) then smashing free association between individuals is immoral.

A market economy requires several components including private property, voluntary exchange of good and services, the lack of state privileges to any sector of he economy, and protection of individual rights. You may have, in a market economy, some individuals trying to violate private property, or forcibly prevent (or require) exchanges, or lobbying for privileges or trying to violate individual rights. But that is the antithesis of the market. If anything those individuals, be they businessmen or not, have more in common with the Far Left which opposes private property, voluntary exchange, advocates state privileges and do not recognise individual rights just
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 11:14pm
James

Ok…Hot chocolate it is. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 27, 2006 11:24pm
Ben Wilson

hlm, the only thing you say that I agree with is that pearls are being cast before swine on this thread.

James, your ‘individuals can own property collectively’ line, which I set you as an easy trap, and that you completely fell for like a 14 year old schoolie debater, leads inexorably to the idea that socialism and capitalism are not incompatible, since the entire nation can collectively own the means of production, rendering it both capitalist and socialist.

Your next point makes me wonder if I’m being mean even talking to you, since you haven’t bothered to check whether there even *is* such a word as ‘devine’. I can’t find any definition for it, and assumed it was a typo, and even gave you a chance to correct yourself. But you persisted with it so relentlessly I wonder if you’re a kid or ESL. Are you ESL? If so, I’ll give you more leeway on the the typos, and just assume you meant ‘define’.

You talk about ‘facts of capitalism’ like they’re graven in stone somewhere and handed to you by God. Hence my word-play on ‘devine’ maybe meaning ‘divine’. Perhaps it’s not a play, though. I can’t actually tell, your statements sound like they’re coming from some ancient tome that I don’t know about, in which the God given facts of capitalism are writ large.

When you talk about facts flowing from your definitions, I wonder if you have any idea about logic at all. Nothing flows from a definition except perhaps the requirement for further definition, which you could then give, but haven’t.

I’m utterly confused by your fish example, in which you try to deny fish the right to live on land simply by virtue of your definition of a fish. It seems to me that if you saw an actual fish living on the land, you would simply say that was not a fish. It is not ‘nature’ doing the forbidding here, it is you and your definitions. Humans are naturally land based animals too, but hey, guess what? There have been humans living on the bottom of the ocean. Or are they not humans?

And how this leads to:
“Capitalism is the only social system consistent with the facts of mans nature…. that he is a reasoning being who lives and grows by applying his mind to the facts of the objectiive reality he lives in and uses those things he has identified as resources by a process of thought that only humans..as far as we know, are able to preform. We are the only species that can undertake abstract thought…which allows us to build things in our minds before creating them in reality.”

…is utterly beyond me. I suspect I haven’t read the right scrolls. It seems to me that man has survived through other systems than capitalism, and indeed has thrived under other systems than your favoured minimal state. So arguments that it’s unnatural are just false.

You attempt to say that all other systems have ended in mass death and misery. Does that include our current systems, which are, according to you, not capitalist? Are we currently suffering mass death and misery in NZ? I can’t say I’ve noticed, perhaps I’m just too much of a socialist.

Finally you challenge me to produce another system better. But we’re still floundering around trying to find an actual capitalist system to compare against so I’m sorry, I might need you to help me a bit here. Where do you think actually is capitalist?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:02am
M

Why is capitalism a dirty word?
Because of these dirty words:

Telecom NZ
TranzRail
Enron
Microsoft
Verizon
Exxon
Nestl
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:06am
M

Why is capitalism a dirty word?
Because of these dirty words:

Telecom NZ
TranzRail
Enron
Microsoft
Verizon
Exxon
Nestl
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:06am
right winger

Everyone knows that the Maritime Union destroyed capitalism in NZ.

We need to go back to the days when capitalsim was natural and those unnatural Socialists were clubbed and beaten up by Police, the special constables, and Masseys Cossacks.

Viva La Capitalism!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:45am
right winger

PS. If you want to know whether capitalism is natural or not you should ask the last famous expect on what was natural, my old mate Adolf Hitler.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:51am
Ben Wilson

hlm, you say:
“Ben is opposed to minimal statism which opens the door to maximum statism I fear. ”

I didn’t actually say that, but you’re right, I am opposed to minimal statism. And yes that ‘opens the door’ to maximal statism, but I don’t advocate that. Nor do I think it likely in the short term (as in during my lifetime). My solution to the rise of dictatorships is strong advocacy for democracy.

“Ben simply makes simple assertions without the slightest justification that James is making simple assertions without the slightest justification.”. Did you have the slightest justification for this claim? :-). Seriously man, to parse James on every nuance of his complete lack of justification is beyond the tolerance even of readers who persist in reading me. And that’s a lot of tolerance.

One last shot, “in defence of Logix”. You ask the rhetorical question: “How could you own everything without already owning everything?”. The answer is blindingly simple. You take it. And that is what happens all the time in capitalism. One person takes from another. Many trades are fair, but many are not. If you are really thirsty I could take all your money for a glass of water.

Logix’s point is really not hard to grasp, even for people who believe in capitalism, which is why antitrust legislation exists in most democratic countries.

If you want a simple example, consider two people who both own farms. One farmer has very bad luck and loses his crops. He can borrow crops from the other farmer, who will probably charge interest. If the farmer is then unable to repay the interest, further interest is incurred. Eventually that farmer will own the other farmer’s farm, and will have the poor guy working for him. This exact scenario has played out so many times in human history that I’m staggered you need to ask the question. Aristocracies have always formed and impoverished people have always worked as serfs for them. As time passes, typically one aristocrat will grow so large and powerful that they will literally own the entire nation, and then they are the king. Have you never heard of monarchy? In the ancient world this system expanded so large that entire nations would be swallowed up and become subjects of an empire. And almost always, that was not enough, and they always wanted to expand more and more. You could call this natural or you could just admit it’s ancient and unfair, rather like slavery.

Why you think it can’t happen in an economic sense is beyond me. Haven’t you ever played ‘Monopoly’? Notice how it starts off as a level playing field, and everyone gets their fair shake of the dice? But notice also how usually one person wins by bankrupting everyone else. This is exactly what happens in unrestrained capitalism. One skilled and lucky player gets control of resources that enable him/her/it to crush the opposition that is competing in the same markets. If they pick just the right spot they can hold virtually everyone to ransom. The only thing that stops one individual eventually accruing enough wealth to own every jot of property in a nation is their fear of the other elites. But collaboration between the elites is just as bad for the massive bulk of humanity, who have no access to this incredibly disproportionate share in the wealth of the world.

Modern monarchy is acheived with wealth alone. If there were no taxes for any purpose other than the military and police forces and law courts, it would accelerate rapidly, and true monarchy would reemerge faster than you think. Perhaps it would be oligarchy for a lengthy period, but that’s still pretty bad for most people. I think we could even see a return to slavery, a system that cohabited with capitalism for a very long time. You only need to make someone ‘illegal’ and you can exploit them like a slave.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 1:00am
Matt

Mark said “many other sporting clubs like the NBA and NFL have salary caps, and have grown their ‘piece of the pie’ as a result. Player salaries are larger *and* significantly more franchises are profitable.” That may well be the case but soccer is far and away the biggest sport in the world and is growing faster than any other sport around. This partly due to the fact that it is the most comercially competitive sport with many different clubs playing in at least 8 full time leagues. A salary cap would lessen this competition between teams for the best players and reduce the incentive for both large and small clubs to continue to grow. The NBA can afford a salary cap becuse no European team can even come close to paying the same money as North America. If that ever changes then the sallary cap in the NBA will be er.. y’know.. gone by lunchtime
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 9:02am
Logix

hlm,

Smashing unions was bad enough but then Logix (not spelled Logic thankfully) wants to exterminate
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 10:27am
James

God did hlm get you guys upset! The silly contradictory stuff you have posted since confirm his point about mad Lefties..And no one paints straw men like Ben it seems….hes managed to blame Capitalism for everything it actually rendered obselete…slavery,monoarchy etc…

At the end of the day facts are facts, what is is,A is A and wishing does not make it any different…

😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 11:48am
Logix

James,

hlm made a total fool of all on his own account. I merely quoted the thread in order to PROVE that. If he cannot comprehend what is being written, and then misquotes it to “demonstrate” what a monster I am, then it is him with the credibility problem, not me.

By the way…we are still waiting for you to produce an actual case of a “pure capitalist system”. (We already know that if you attempt a “pure socialist system”, i.e. communism, that it does not work.) All we are asking you for is one single example of a real live capitalist system of the type you so passionately believe in.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:13pm
mark

hlm: “There is one tediously long, confused and sarcastic post by Mark (Marx?) that seems to assume that if you string a series of accusations together you have an argument. Sorry, but my accusing you of 50 crimes,, as opposed to just 1, does not make my case stronger until I provide evidence for any of them. In other words, Mark presented his list for indictment and conveniently left out supporting evidence.”

My post was already pretty long. I provided 10+ links in my post which *I* think constitute evidence. Read them and let me know where you disagree with the points I made.

On another note, your post has the same sort so of sweeping and dismissive statements you are criticising your opponents of. What’s up with that?

matt: “Mark said “many other sporting clubs like the NBA and NFL have salary caps, and have grown their ‘piece of the pie’ as a result. Player salaries are larger *and* significantly more franchises are profitable.” That may well be the case but soccer is far and away the biggest sport in the world and is growing faster than any other sport around. This partly due to the fact that it is the most comercially competitive sport with many different clubs playing in at least 8 full time leagues. A salary cap would lessen this competition between teams for the best players and reduce the incentive for both large and small clubs to continue to grow. The NBA can afford a salary cap becuse no European team can even come close to paying the same money as North America. If that ever changes then the sallary cap in the NBA will be er.. y’know.. gone by lunchtime”

You’re right. The salary cap is a form of protectionsim, and wouldn’t work as well if there was another external league that the NBA was competing with. However, I disagree with the statement that a salary cap would discourage clubs from growing. All the salary cap does is stop teams with the biggest chequebooks from buying the best players (like the crappy yankees). That looks like the free market, but really isn’t. It’s analogous to big oil companies buying all the electric car patents and sitting on them, or microsoft buying smart little companies to ‘innovate’. That’s totally fine by the rules of ‘the market’ but the consumers don’t get such a good deal. A salary cap encourages teams like San Antonio and Detroit to manage intelligently their rosters, whereas the Knicks on the other hand are a disaster because they are operating in a pre-salaray cap mindest, where ‘value’ has no meaning, only absolute worth (e.g. player A may be ‘worth’ $6 million, and player B is worth $4 million, but player A’s actual salary is $10 million and player B’s actual salary is $4 million. Player A is more talented than player B, but player B is a better value, because his salary more closely matches his talent).

I’m not sure that I agree with your claim that Soccer is the fastest growing sport because it’s the most commercially competitive. Surely it’s fast growing because it’s legion of fans appreciate the product being offered? That seems disconnected from how commercially competitive the industry is.

And I don’t see how a salary cap would lessen the competition either.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 12:46pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

Problems with ‘pure’ capitalism.

1. It is incompatible with democracy. Whenever you have an electoral system you will have politicians who will promise to pass legislation benefiting certain constituents. Even if the right not to interfere in the free market is enshrined in a nations constitution political expediency will eventually cause it to die the death of a thousand cuts.

2. It does not accept the existence of fate. How would a capitalist world react to flooding, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions ect? There is no efficient market solution to the outbreak of a contagious disease. And on a smaller scale, there is no market solution to feed and clothe people born with handicaps or genetic deficiencies – particularly those born into low income families.

3. It does not accept the environment as a scarce resource. The clean air and water enjoyed in first world countries is a result of the ‘dead hand of the government’ regulating industry and consumer choice – try visiting cities like Cairo or Mexico City sometime and see how well the market governs itself when it comes to environmental issues.

4. It does not accept the existence of racism, class structures or other forms of prejudice. If a skill-base is large enough then the only thing preventing an employer hiring on the basis of ethnicity, gender ect is government regulation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 3:24pm
Ben Wilson

James, now I’m really confused. But as Logix points out, you’re still desperately dodging giving any actual examples of the kind of capitalism you could consent to being allowed the name.

This naturally leads to straw men because it’s a guessing game working out what the hell you’re on about. One good example of a minimal state is the anarchic nature of the ancient world in which the only taxes were for the military and police that ‘protected’ you, and law courts to hang, draw and quarter you. There was no welfare of any kind. And what a fuxored time that ten thousand years was. I’m sure glad I live now, where popular rebellions in most industrialised nations secured democracy at least.

But it seems you think that capitalism is a post feudal phenomenon, which narrows it down to a few hundred years. Since socialism is generally thought to have gained popularity only since Marx, can I safely assume the industrial world prior to then was capitalist? That would be the world in which Europe destroyed almost every other society in the world, and made constant war on itself? This is your golden age? One where slavery reached heights that had not been seen since the collapse of the Roman Empire, where genocide in the name of progress was wrought on most of America and Africa, and a lot of Asia too? Where Britain waged war on China for the right to supply opium? Where Napolean marched hundreds of thousands of soldiers from one pitched battle to the next until his megalomania was finally stopped by cold Russian reality?

Or when the hell are you talking about? And where?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 3:43pm
James

Tsk….and on it goes ….;-)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 4:00pm
Ben Wilson

Yup, you came to a debate, made a few stupid comments and got a debate. Well done kid, you’ve won about as big a victory as a 4 year old I saw last night who kept deliberately dropping his food on the floor until eventually he got put to bed. That is, some negative adult attention and an empty stomach.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 4:22pm
James

Cast ya bait elsewhere fibber..;-) You are done and dusted.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 5:02pm
James

Actually I just discovered this and it sums up my points very well…so if you are really seeking knowledge of what Im advocating here it is…

http://celebratecapitalism.org/bernsteindeclaration/english/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 5:10pm
Danyl Mclauchlan

From James’ silly link:

It is no accident that man
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 5:36pm
Ben Wilson

James, LOL, you have a trademarked opinion? Better be careful propounding it without a license, kid. Wouldn’t want PRODOS on your arse, especially since it sounds like a nerdy operating system.

Seriously man, you’re taking the piss, right?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 6:33pm
Ben Wilson

That link you gave is an absolute classic. Cracks me up. I’d never even considered the idea of making a bullshit yank-style cult out of something as boring as capitalism. But as DPF.com shows, there’s a wierd fetish for everyone. Keep it up man, your apparent silliness is now forgiven – I realize it’s just a ruse to provoke attention to that website. You shoulda just linked to it straight off man, it’s worth it just for the laughs.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 6:40pm
Matt

My point about soccer is that a lack of salary cap as well as the transfer market that enables clubs to buy and sell players has resulted in a system that has encouraged clubs to put more resources into talent scouting and development. In the 2002 world cup France played Senegal in the opening match. None of the French players played club football in France but all the senegalese played for French clubs, this was mainly due to the French league and clubs being less wealthy than those of England Spain Italy and Germany so the best French players went where the best money was. This forced the French clubs to find the best possible replacement talent and some of the obvious places to look were the French speaking former colonies in Africa. A similar pattern has happened in other leagues and the result is that no match involving 2 teams ranked in the top 20-30 is a forgone conclusion. I know this a bit simplistic and there are many other reasons but I do think the structure of soccer has enabled it to grow much bigger than it otherwise would have been. Hope all that makes a bit of sense.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 7:25pm
Ben Wilson

I think the growth of soccer is due to it being a sport that requires no particularly expensive equipment or location for a bit of fun, can be played well by most physiques (if they are fit), and is great exercise. It also has no particular cultural background so it’s politically pretty neutral.

In summary I think it’s actually the game itself that makes it popular, nothing to do with the boring political structures that surround its top level play. People like it because they can appreciate it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 7:34pm
Matt

No doubt about that Ben. My point is that if European football had operated under some sort of salary cap for the past 50 years the result would be less diverse nationalities playing in the top leagues and a less competitive international scene. The game would still be far and away the biggest under that scenario for the reasons you have mentioned.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 8:42pm
jay
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 28, 2006 10:29pm
gytvxjywse

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! oktoeslrnb
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
June 15, 2007 1:21am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« PC threatened with Defamation

Why I don’t use my nickname as my URL »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Top Stories

General Debate 19 April 2024
General Debate 20 April 2024
Two terrible attacks in Australia
Singapore takes defence very seriously
Coalition Operating Agreement
Are those with access cards the problem?
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
No excuse for fleeing
General Debate 18 April 2024
This could explain the brickbat

Recent Posts

The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body 20 April 2024
General Debate 20 April 2024 20 April 2024
Coalition Operating Agreement 20 April 2024
Are those with access cards the problem? 19 April 2024
Singapore takes defence very seriously 19 April 2024
General Debate 19 April 2024 19 April 2024
Two terrible attacks in Australia 19 April 2024
No excuse for fleeing 18 April 2024
This could explain the brickbat 18 April 2024
General Debate 18 April 2024 18 April 2024
We still have an inflation problem 18 April 2024
UK Labour Deputy Leader in trouble 17 April 2024

Never miss a post

Email Address

Recent Comments

General Debate 20 April 2024
Ghost
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
Steve Otto(North Shore)
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
Steve Otto(North Shore)
General Debate 20 April 2024
Mike
General Debate 20 April 2024
MCōs
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
Ghost
General Debate 20 April 2024
ecco
General Debate 19 April 2024
NZer In Exile
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
Dougal10
General Debate 20 April 2024
MCōs
General Debate 19 April 2024
NZer In Exile
General Debate 20 April 2024
Maggie Pie
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
Steve Otto(North Shore)
General Debate 20 April 2024
MCōs
General Debate 20 April 2024
JimBobJoe

Links

Geoff Parker: Corey Hebberd’s humbug taken to task
Breaking Views
More Expert Wrongness, Military version: Missile Defence and the F-35
No Minister
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Populist Extremism and Culture Wars on the rise in NZ? We’ve been here before, but why it’s different this time
The Daily Blog
A crisis of ambition
Point of Order
Response from Devin Pope, on religious attendance
Utopia
Open mike 20/04/2024
The Standard
A who's who of New Zealand's dodgiest companies
No Right Turn
"Under a better Resource Management system [sic], there would be no need for fast-track approval processes."
Not PC
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d