Government intervention has always been on the behalf of large corporations. Either for overthrowing progressive governments that seek to nationalize private property that would hurt corporation (Iran in '53) , protecting private property rights abroad, supressing labor union movements, installing loyal dictators for corporate needs, reserving cheap source of labor, properiating resources, etc.
Although I understand ancaps are against corporatism. Though, no one has yet to explain to me how this free market capitalism, which is still run by the same market mechanics, can be any different.
You’re raising standard objections that have been answered numerous times throughout history. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with these answers before you make a fool of yourself on this thread. Read Mises, Rothbard, and Hayek. I’d reccommend starting with Hazlit’s “economics in one lesson.”
The amount of food currently produced wouldn’t exist without private property, and free exchange. Without the profit motive, private property, etc no farmer would have an incentive to produce as much as she currently produces.
I’m not denying that, but it is false to look at the corporations as saviors for “providing” jobs that pay better than the alternatives.
There is yet a much better alternative though. Why should the workers have to be paid such low wages at all? Its slave labor.
I know, but on one side they say that free market capitalism does not exist, but yet they will praise and provide facts on how country X has improved due to capitalism.
'Government intervention has always been on the behalf of large corporations. Either for overthrowing progressive governments that seek to nationalize private property that would hurt corporation (Iran in ‘53) , protecting private property rights abroad, supressing labor union movements, installing loyal dictators for corporate needs, reserving cheap source of labor, properiating resources, etc’
Well the government plays both hands. It is in large corporations pockets and yet at times against them with things like subsidization for competitors and passing labor laws.
‘Although I understand ancaps are against corporatism. Though, no one has yet to explain to me how this free market capitalism, which is still run by the same market mechanics, can be any different.’
But it is not run by the same mechanics. It is an absence of state. Left to their own devices, competition naturally weeds out corporations which do not appease the consumer base. Now its not going to be perfect. The market doesn’t react instantly but people’s impressions affect when/where/how trade happens. So if we a society based upon libertarian values which include but are not limited to cooperation, voluntary exchange, reason over violence and a respect for individuality/sovereignty then I think it would make for a beneficial environment.
"I’m not denying that, but it is false to look at the corporations as saviors for “providing” jobs that pay better than the alternatives.
There is yet a much better alternative though. Why should the workers have to be paid such low wages at all? Its slave labor."
I do not agree that it is slave labor. They are better off with these jobs than they were without, and they took the jobs voluntarily. I think it sucks that the governments of these countries have kept their people in such poverty that a sweatshop provides the best opportunity for them to provide for their families and children, and I find it appalling that in the year 2010 people could be in such conditions.
“Why should the workers have to be paid such low wages?”
What is a wage? A wage is the price of rent for labor. How does that rent price rise? Why is it low in the first place? If you get painfully bored (lol) or are just curious about how wages rise (or at least how we THINK they rise since you do not agree) check out this http://mises.org/books/whywagesrise.pdf .
“I know, but on one side they say that free market capitalism does not exist, but yet they will praise and provide facts on how country X has improved due to capitalism.”
There are different degrees of economic freedom throughout the world. The greater the degree of freedom, the closer the economy is to being “free market capitalism”. Even within the same economy, different sectors can be less regulated than other. Example: Tech vs Finance in the USA.
I also added the ability to engage in mutually beneficial exchange. Either way, yes, the communist leaders of the world were forced to allow some form of capitalism in order to prevent complete systemic destruction. When tens of millions starve to death, you begin to rethink your ideology. The government is a parasite; it requires a host.
We don’t support capitalism because we dream of some utopian society. We support capitalism because we understand that no such utopian society can ever exist. That is to say, we’ve abandoned meaningless fairy tales. History is clear: the freer the economy, the freer and the society, and the greater the prosperity.
Yes, they are nothing but meaningless and quite frankly, pathetic emotional pleas. (1) Your exploitation complaint has no theoretical backing. It was destroyed once Ohm-Bawerk and Menger showed that value is purely a subjective phenomenon. (2) You focus on the seen, and then compare it to some imaginary world you created in your head. Without those sweatshops the workers would die of starvation. Wealth doesn’t fall from the sky; you cannot will it into existence. You start with early industrialization, and as you accumulate capital, wealth accumulates and you become prosperous.
Friedman said it well; “I share the softness of your heart, but not the softness of your head.” (something like that)
Hahaha. What more can be said? This level of stupidity is really appalling. Please, go back to your Venus project and fantasize about floating cities and cars that travel at light-speed.
‘Marx on capitalist economics, Lenin on imperialism’
Well I would argue that they didn’t have a proper conceptual definition of what capitalism is. Marx lived in a time of mercantilsitic sentiments and try to pass them off as bourgeois capitalism. Lenin lived in an age of empire building and the ‘large policy’ and like Marx, tried to pass them off as bourgeois capitalism. Kropotkin and Bakunin think that private property creates social disturbances and violence yet Aristotle already answered these fears in his discourse with Plato centuries ago.
Shutup, I am not interested in any discussion with you. You seem to have no reason to respond other than to bash me.
FYI, Marx explains the transition of value to prices in vol 3 of Das Kapital. And no Marx was not able to look into the future. How would you know if you never read it anyway?
Funny that you say this, because many of the forum members on this site have read Marx, Lenin, Kropotkin, and Bakunin. I’m rather familiar with Kropotkin and Bankunin. I know others are quite familiar with Marx and Lenin.
You’re the one who is coming into the debate undereducated, not us. Give Hazlitt and Rothbard a fair shake and then come back to us to debate.
Drace, what’s wrong with matrices of individuals making voluntary exchanges through the use of their own property?
To further elaborate, how would you explain the reason why, in detail, millions do die each year because of starvation, and how would a centralized means of food production cure this compared to a free-market solution that would lift the government restrictions and intervention on farming and private property that leads to mass starvation?