Thoughts on Capitalism

Miscellaneous Newbies
1

Hey,

Just wanted to get your thoughts on another long-winded pondering of mine, regarding the future of capitalism, which came to me while reading about the riots taking place in London, UK, the past few days.

Do you think that maybe, with the worlds population continuing to grow, availability of land decreasing, technology doing more and more jobs that people used to do (yes I have read Economics In One Lesson, and I think times have changed since Hazlitt’s days) and resources becoming more scarce, that eventually most people will not have the opportunity to acquire property and most will find it difficult to gain employment?

Looking at my industry, software testing in the financial services industry, operations people are being laid off as software and machines progress and data can be processed quicker and more efficiently (and jobs are off-shored but that’s another story). And in the software testing area automation software is getting more advanced all the time, and some of the most popular software is open-source and available free. Are we even going to need workers in 50 years? What is everyone going to do for a living? In a Capitalist society unless you inherited property you would be a charity case, you couldn’t even live off the land as it would all be privately owned.

I can imagine a situation like this taking place, and then I would imagine that the majority of people who are propertyless would decide they disagree with a system of private ownership of property, and there would be some kind of revolution whereby private property would confiscated and a form of socialism put in place to allocate scarce resources more evenly among the masses.

I by no means believe that socialism is a superior system (not to mention that pretty every attempt at introducing it has been a failure) and I believe I would always manage to look after myself under a capitalist system, but is it inevitable that Capitalism will die do to lack of opportunities…if that makes sense?

2

You could take the current world population and fit it in Texas, with each person having 1200 square feet. The population of the world is widely exaggerated. We still have plenty of room.

You could argue that, eventually, the world will be overpopulated, causing a problem for the capitalist system. But I don’t believe this will happen, especially if most of the world is capitalistic. Obviously, capitalism leads to more wealth. And it has beeen shown that as people get wealthier, they tend to reproduce less. This is why, in the U.S., our population is only growing as a result of immigration. If it wasn’t for that, we would be shrinking.

3

(yes I have read Economics In One Lesson, and I think times have changed since Hazlitt’s days)

  1. What has changed?

  2. You need to read more.

Do you think that maybe, with the worlds population continuing to grow,

People are not mouths to feed; they are a resource, just like any other. the more laborers, the more you can get done. so you are being optimistic here.

availability of land decreasing,

Where is it disappearing to? Is it falling into the Twilight Zone?

technology doing more and more jobs that people used to do

See above about people being a resource.

…and resources becoming more scarce,

Which resources are becoming more scarce?

that eventually most people will not have the opportunity to acquire property

If you can do something people want, meaning you can be productive, you can exchange your work for money and property.

and most will find it difficult to gain employment?

Why has this never been a problem before? There is always something that needs to be done.

Looking at my industry, software testing in the financial services industry, operations people are being laid off as software and machines progress and data can be processed quicker and more efficiently (and jobs are off-shored but that’s another story). And in the software testing area automation software is getting more advanced all the time, and some of the most popular software is open-source and available free.

Yes, the horse and buggy people had the same gloomy tale to tell when the automobile was mass produced. A particular industry may become obsolete, and it hurts those in the industry, but there is always something else to do.

Are we even going to need workers in 50 years? What is everyone going to do for a living?

If we won’t need workers, that means things will be produced so cheaply they will be almost free. You know about Adam Smith and the needle factory. In that fortunate event, we might only have to work a few hours a week and could party the rest of the time. Great.

In a Capitalist society unless you inherited property you would be a charity case, you couldn’t even live off the land as it would all be privately owned.

What would the owner of a farm that produces enough to feed thousands of people do with his crops? Obviously, he could only trade it for your labor. So you won’t be a charity case. He’ll pay you to do something or other.

I can imagine a situation like this taking place, and then I would imagine that the majority of people who are propertyless would decide they disagree with a system of private ownership of property, and there would be some kind of revolution whereby private property would confiscated and a form of socialism put in place to allocate scarce resources more evenly among the masses.

It might happen. It’s slowly happening right now. It took China a few decades of disaster to wise up a little bit. Is the West any smarter? Don’t think so.

is it inevitable that Capitalism will die do to lack of opportunities?

If anything it will die of govt intervention, like always. Left to itself, it always thrives, eliminating poverty.

Put it this way. Why can’t you open your own bank? Or ratings agency, since S&P is doing so poor a job?

P.S. The riots in London have nothing to do with capitalism. Quite the opposite.

4

Which drives down prices considerably, as wages are the biggest cost in production. Now we can buy shoes for $20 and not $200.

Times change but math doesn’t.

5

Hey China Diapers,

We have met in person before - at one of the libertarian meetups a few months ago.

I’m witnessing the effects of the riots as my area was one of the targetted areas and I’m concerned too.

I have a friend who expesses the exact same concerns about society’s ability to care for the environment and its people as you do. This is not an attack in any way but the way you express your concerns is reminiscent of the Venus Project’s position.

The Venus Project makes some very valid observations but if you are interested in a critical review of Zietgeist’s Addendum and Moving Forward documentaries, you should check out the following youtube videos posted by Stefan Molyneux. Please forgive the slightly derisive tone of the video’s author - he at times shows his contempt for the ideas in a less than inspiring way - but his facts are pretty solid.

Addendum review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1JcUBx2dxU

Moving Forward review: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg5K07c72Tw

There are other videos which document some of the recent dialog between Molyneux and TVP but I’d be interested to hear would you think in response to the above two videos.

6

Not really that much. The essence of Ludditism is the same today as it was then. The machines that replaced the jobs of laborers had themselves to be built by somebody. The substitution of capital equipment for labor is not profitable when there is a glut of labor… in other words, machines can’t put people out of a job. It’s cheaper to just hire a human dishwasher if there’s lots of unemployed people (and no minimum wage) than it is to buy a commercial dishwasher. I applaud you for reading Hazlitt’s tract, now I would turn your attention to this for a deeper understanding.

Acquiring property is merely a matter of selling one’s labor. As long as reproduction is not subsidized (child support, welfare, laws and regulations that benefit parents at the expense of non-parents, etc.) population - like all other human social factors - will equilibrate. The problem of maintaining optimum population has already been solved by nature.

Who will write the testing software? Other software? (Hint: This is a trap question)

This is why we must bring an end to the system of monopoly privilege. Monopoly and cartel (through regulation) on law, security, banking, transport, communication, etc. etc. must be brought to an end. We simply can’t afford the system of privilege any longer… most of the world will starve to death if it is brought to its logical end.

Elimination of mercantilism is not the same thing as elimination of private property. The Power Elite (mercantilists/monopolists/crony-capitalists) seek to identify the source of their impossible wealth (their privileges) with private property. It’s not private property. Taxes are not the King’s or the government’s property. Until we strike at the very heart of the corrupt system, corruption will continue to rule.

It only makes sense if capitalism = crony capitalism. If we are talking about the technical sense of capitalism = free exchange + property rights (which implies no privileges), then no, it doesn’t make sense. Read the first couple chapters of Human Action… the dual spectres of uncertainty and scarcity are constantly bearing down on the human being at all times. Technology is just a means to alleviating specific ends and is beside the point. Capitalism, in its most advanced form - a well-developed market of loanable funds for entrepreneurial endeavors - is the only solution to the problems of uncertainty and scarcity. This is as true in a Venus Project space-world as it is today.

Clayton -

7

http://vimeo.com/5024681

Clayton -

8

Ultimately, free capitalism could be an unsustainable system. Statistically, it likely won’t be. But it could be.

The only system which can 100% solve is some state which is ruled only by the need to make humans sustainable. The government must have no greed, must be all-knowing and 100% correct. Such a system doesn’t exist, because government is of men, not angels.

To address what some others have said, even if actual property still exists to be acquired, the perception is what matters in the practical case. Capitalism will be attacked if it seems like people can’t live well. But that exists in the current system too.

9

Capitalism is not a system.

10

hey dudes, thanks for all the replies. I am waiting for a flight to Ireland for a wedding and will reply on my return, just wanted to say 2 things:

  1. Hi Jim, long time. I will see you at another one of the Libtertarian meetups one of these days. As you can see I am still trying to get my head around a few things but making progress = )

  2. I realise the London riots are nothing to do with Capitalism, the rioters are anti-establishment not anti-capitalist, what would they do with themselves if Capitaliam had not created the flatscreen TV’s and designer clothes they value so much, they just don’t see why they should work for them.

The reason the riots made me think about Capitalism was the reponse to the riots by the Guardian and the usual left wing suspects about unequal society etc.

11

None of these riots have anything to do with capitalism. They have everything to do with the corrupt global politico-financial system and its discoordination of savings and investment by distorting the interest rate, its breakdown of the division of labor, its redistribution from producers to parasites, its ever-reincarnating colonialism and imperialism, and its general corruption of social mores. Of course, few if any of those who are rioting in Greece, London, Philadelphia or elsewhere could put what I just said into words because they have not yet been exposed to Austrian concepts. But they know in their gut that there’s something wrong with the world just the same.

Unlike some 19th centural liberals, I do not believe the masses are our salvation. Because they are not specialists in ideas and their consequences, they are easily duped into becoming unwitting accomplices to their own exploitation by the parasitic class which has nothing better to do with itself than to dream up new schemes to hoodwink the people. However, this unrest should be acting as a red flag to the academic community which has been drinking the “End of History” Kool-Aid for nigh on a century now. Democracy is not freedom. This is not the “End of History” - it is difficult to imagine a more lobotomized phrase. Hopefully, the abject failure of the Elites to maintain social stability with the morphine drip of cradle-to-grave welfare will act as a wake-up call to our dormant academia and journalists. When was the last time you read a real no-punches-pulled investigative journalist piece on corruption by a major politician? It doesn’t happen anymore. I don’t mean the corruption doesn’t happen, I mean the investigative journalism doesn’t happen anymore. Of course the corruption is going on - more than ever, I assume. But nobody’s exposing it or even trying because our academia and journalists have been absorbed into the globalist Leviathan. All politicians are “good folks.” Either that, or the system (FBI/DOJ/etc.) finds them. The world is an orderly and decent place where everything is right on time. Systematic corruption is impossible - unthinkable, really. It really has become unthinkable and nobody thinks it anymore.

Clayton -

12

“System” does not imply imposing, though many systems are imposed. System is just a description of relationships in a network of interacting objects. Hence, I believe capitalism is a system. Our disagreement may be no more than a matter of definition. If not, please explain what underlying assumptions I am making when I use “system.”

Also, yay for the End of History mention! I agree with you on that.

13

“System” is a dangerous word because it implies some sort of telic organization. A “self-organized system” is almost a contradiction of terms. Unfortunately, this is a frequently used term. A system is something which is organized and has a well-defined boundary. For example, my body is a system. It regulates its own temperature and blood-pressure through coordination of a central-nervous system. It is tightly integrated and clearly separated by a boundary (skin) from everything which is not a part of the system.

Self-organization arises through the negotiated interaction of systems. The biosphere is self-organized. But it has no well-defined boundary. Is the sunlight entering the cells of photosynthesizing plants part of the biosphere? One could equally argue that it is and that it isn’t. The economy, too, is self-organized but it has no clearly defined boundary. Sunlight could be argued to be a part of the economy, too. Or not.

Clayton -

14

I just went ahead and wrote this response right after reading the OP, but after reading the rest of the thread I can see some of what I’ve said here has been relayed by other posters (h/t Dave)…but here’s my take anyway:

You obviously didn’t read it carefully enough. The points Hazlitt makes have no bearing on time period. You are operating under the assumption that economic and natural laws are no longer valid. You think that human wants will ever be completely fulfilled? You think that we will reach a point at which no one wants anything more? Until that happens there will always be work to be done. As long as any human desire goes unfulfilled, there will be jobs available.

And since when do you need to acquire property to gain employment? And what is the point of employment if you cannot acquire property? I’m not even sure what you’re talking about.

People could have asked the same question 50 years ago when they saw how refrigeration was taking the job of the milk man and the ice-delivery man. And earlier when motor cars were taking the job of buggy whip makers and carriage makers and horse caretakers. Or how about when steamshovels allowed one man to do the job of 100, in half the time. You are missing the point. Jobs do not create wealth. People do work (i.e. act) to achieve an ends. It is how effective that work is that determines how wealthy they are…as in, it is production that contributes to overall wealth. Humans have been looking for easier ways to get what they want since the beginning of time. You aren’t digging in the dirt because you want something to do…more than likely you’re digging because you want a hole in the ground. If you could create the hole without digging, (i.e. get what you want without working for it), most people would argue you are wealthier. But it sounds like you’re claiming you’d be worse off because you’d be “out of a job.”

That makes absolutely no sense. Did you inherit the property you live on? Do you even live off the land where you reside? Are you a charity case?

Again, why hasn’t this happened?

No, unfortunately it makes absolutely no sense. “Capitalism will die do to lack of opportunities.” There is isn’t really much to say to that. It really does make virtually no sense at all.

P.S.

I almost forgot…I fail to see what this has to do with the UK riot. People were revolting because government agents killed a 29 year old guy. Apparently the same thing happened in the same town in 1985 when a local woman suffered heart failure when her home was raided by police. I fail to see what this has to do with capitalism. If anything it seems to be a revolt against statism.

15

No, unfortunately it makes absolutely no sense. “Capitalism will die do to lack of opportunities.” There is isn’t really much to say to that. It really does make virtually no sense at all.

What the poster is saying is that in a world where all property is already owned, one could end up with nothing to do at all. If no one wants to give him a job or sell him property, he is helpless. Your argument in this case would be that the market wouldn’t do that, that someone would help. His argument then becomes “we’re not talking about statistics or utilitarianism, we’re talking about extremes possible under the system.” Here you could then accuse him of Nirvana, which seems to be a KO around here.

16

You should read Julian Simon. The Ultimate Resource is good one.

17

No, my argument is “where is your evidence for this”? Why has this not happened? Is there still a bunch of frontier land somewhere that I’m unaware of? Is there some major source of resources that haven’t yet been homesteaded? Where is this world were all property isn’t already owned?

Again, that doesn’t make sense. This “possible extreme” already exists. Property is already owned and I don’t see a bunch of forced charity cases. I don’t see able-bodied people, with an interest in earning something, simply not being able to because no one wants their labor or their skill. Again, he said “In a Capitalist society unless you inherited property you would be a charity case, you couldn’t even live off the land as it would all be privately owned.”

So I’ll ask you the same question I asked him: Did you inherit the property you live on? Do you even live off the land where you reside? Are you a charity case?

Unless you answered “yes” to at least the first or last question, you yourself prove your theory wrong.

Well, if your position is rooted in that, then I suppose calling it out as such should be a KO. After all, it is a fallacy.

18

Now look what you made me do, I am in a foreign country on a bus replying to a thread on my phone.

Sorry I annoyed you by posting my question on the newbe forum, you have successfully made me feel foolish well done to you. I will read your post properly and reply later but I just wanted to say that I had already stated the riots were nothing to do with capitalism, so say that would be giving these people way too much credit, I used to live very near where it all kicked off I could talk about it for hours but I would probably sound like a daily mail reading conservative, maybe later.

The reason the riots got me thinking was the predictable reaction by the media, but then where you live maybe you don’t have newspapers run by fabians and marxists.,

19

This could only happen if the Law of Association is false.

No, the correct argument is to point out that the Law of Association is not false.

Clayton -

20

OK, I’m back. I have lost my enthuasiasm for this topic so I will just admit I don’t know what I am talking about and carry on reading till it clicks into place.

On the subject of Hazlitt I think I should explain, I am a fan of his writing, but my thinking was that back in the 40’s he could not have foreseen the rapid growth in population and frightening pace at which technology has progressed. When I walk out my place of work the first thing I come across is an unmanned post-office, fully automated, and next to that a Tesco’s (convenience store) where they appear to be attempting the same thing. But clearly people will be employed elsewhere and these technologies create new job themselves, silly me. I suppose I am cautious that just because a pattern has always repeated itself in the past doesn’t mean it will continue to repeat itself in the future.

On the subject of rioters, please don’t compare these people to the rioters in Greece. As I said the I lived nearby Tottenham for many years, I have seen these kids, living on welfare but somehow they all have blackberry’s, nike trainers and designer jeans, I put this down to a complete breakdown in the link between acquiring possessions and working for a living. If that’s poverty and it causes riots my country would be in flames every weekend.

Thanks for the replies.