Thoughts on Capitalism

[John_James]

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:

@China Diapers

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?

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 You are operating under the assumption that economic and natural laws are no longer valid.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.

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?

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.”

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.

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?

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.

Again, why hasn’t this happened?

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?

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.