Oh yes, while I was away I happened to see Capitalism: A Love Story. Moore, what a joker, very disappointing.
Do you realize that men like Hazlitt lived during the most significant change of technology and civilization? Of course, he had a sound basis for seeing the influence of rapid change. He was born in 1894, before there were heavier than air vehicles (planes), wide-spread use of cars, and mechanization of warfare. By the time he wrote his book, all of these things happened and with it major changes in lifestyles of everyone from the poorest to the richest. Such changes don’t invalidate economic laws, they illuminate them. In his time, the price of many goods reduced and productivity expanded rapidly. Today, we see that this haven’t changed much and that the innovations are actually decreasing and not increasing as you claim (compare the types of patents issued in his time versus our time, you’ll see I’m right about this). And with lack of major innovation we see prices reaching their bottom for the technology and methods of today. Tomorrow? I’m not Karnak, so I won’t guess. But if the economic laws discovered centuries ago were true in his time and true now, I can at least claim they’ll remain true tomorrow.
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 = )
Hey China!
No worries, bud… I’m doing just the same… lots to learn and this forum seems like a good source of information.
Liked your comment about the Tottenham rioters. I think many people have lost sight of the concept of a demonstration. The only time they do demonstrate, it is in opposition to cuts to the welfare state. When that produces no results, they riot. IOW, “.. if you’re not going to steal it from the public, we’ll have to steal it from them ourselves.”
If the result of the riots is to increase the scope of the state, I can’t help wondering if there was any substance to the rumour that kids were paid to riot.
Anyway, regardless of any rumours, usually new laws or a change to existing laws follows a crisis or a semi-crisis. As Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want to let a serious crisis go to waste”. To me the most obvious target is technology which allows people to communicate freely and on a large scale. This is more a threat to the state than to the population as it facilitates people’s critical thinking - something the state cannot bear because it would lead to a severe reduction in the scope of state power over the individual and hence make rioting far less likely.
The only thing that gives the threat of mass rioting, organized through mobile networks, any legitimacy is the existence of the welfare/warfare state in the first place.
‘‘with the worlds population continuing to grow’’
But will it? As Hayek points out in the Fatal Conceit the populations of developed countries are stable or declining.
If anything I am more worried about population decline. As the extent of the market & of the abstract social order is limited by the size of the population, as smaller populations can not exploit the division of labour & knowledge as much as the large. A growing population is compatible with progress a shrinking one isn’t.
-
The “population bomb” and increasing scarcity of resources is a Malthusian myth. Next topic…
-
I agree that the “availability” of land is decreasing, because the majority of it is in the hands of governments, not private citizens. In the United States, land is taken out of use altogether and declared to be national parks and forests, then private individuals are barred from using them even for recreation. Other countries, such as those in the Middle East, consider all land to belong to the ruler or ruling party and it is leased to individuals for periods of 99 or more years. This seems viable, until you need to expand a business and have no collateral for a loan. Third world nations where government fluctuates between anarchy and tyranny have no respect for private property at all. When land is in private hands and is free to be bought, sold, traded, or leased as the situation dictates, you always end up with optimum use of that land’s space and resources.
-
Technology allows human capital to move where it can be most efficient, freeing up resources for other things. The purpose of capitalism-- the purpose of any economy at all-- is to produce less work, not more work. The only reason that daydreamers can conceive of eliminating poverty today is because new technology and an expanding economy has made it possible to improve anything at all.
When governments hinder the process of capitalism, however, by favoring business cartels over free enterprise, passing ridiculous rules and regulations that make it impossible to do business, or “spreading the wealth around”, the population at large always suffers. The end is always fewer goods and services and the enrichment of a few non-producers at everyone else’s expense. That’s the dirty little secret of socialism.
Capitalism creates more opportunities, not fewer. Socialist bureaucracies take them away by restricting peoples’ freedom to trade and to keep what they produce.
Third world nations where government fluctuates between anarchy and tyranny have no respect for private property at all
Haha. If I may add in a few “…”:
… government … ha[s] no respect for private property at all
So we see that your statement is quite pointless 
Have you read about Somalia? https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/move-to-somalia-tunisia-or-haiti-if-you-want-anarchy/20155/16