In Praise of Capitalism

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
1. The Social Gospel enthusiasts cloak their aims in the language of religion, and suggest that the alternative is the evil “profit motive,” … and capitalism. Yet, morality is actuality at the center of capitalism. Early economic thinker Adam Smith famously wrote about economic concepts in “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” in 1776.

a. Smith propounded the idea that free trade benefits both sides, and how the “invisible hand” of self-interest benefits society overall.


2. But it was Smith’s “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” published 1759, revealed how market rewards encourage virtues such as hard work, what he called “industry,” and trustworthy behavior. In the chapter called “Of the influence and authority of the general Rules of Morality, and that they are justly regarded as the Laws of the Deity,” he asked ‘What is the reward most proper for encouraging industry, prudence, and circumspections? Success in every sort of business.’ The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith 3

a. So, capitalism is not only the best economic system, but it is the best way to encourage people to engage in hard work, and to be honest in their dealings.


3. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes. https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05



4. “A couple of years ago, Amanda Hocking needed to raise a few hundred dollars….. We find Hocking sitting in her tiny, sparsely furnished apartment in Austin, Minnesota. She is penniless and frustrated, having spent years fruitlessly trying to interest traditional publishers in her work…. she is more than willing to drive eight hours but has no money for petrol, let alone a hotel for the night. What is she to do? Then it comes to her. She can take one of the many novels she has written over the previous nine years, all of which have been rejected by umpteen book agents and publishing houses, and slap them up on Amazon and other digital ebook sites. Surely, she can sell a few copies to her family and friends? All she needs for the journey to Chicago is $300… Over the past 20 months Hocking has sold 1.5m books and made $2.5m. All by her lonesome self. Not a single book agent or publishing house or sales force or marketing manager or bookshop anywhere in sight.” Amanda Hocking, the writer who made millions by self-publishing online | Books | The Guardian

From chapter 12 of "Cowards," by Beck and Balfe.
 
Well, there's no other economic system that comes close to increasing wealth and the standard of living for those societies that use it. It's problems are in governance, either too little or too much or too ineffectual; our political leaders have been making changes for political reasons rather than for the real common good. That is one big reason why we find ourselves in the mess we're in now, mismanagement by both sides for at least several decades.
 
1. The Social Gospel enthusiasts cloak their aims in the language of religion, and suggest that the alternative is the evil “profit motive,” … and capitalism. Yet, morality is actuality at the center of capitalism. Early economic thinker Adam Smith famously wrote about economic concepts in “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” in 1776.

a. Smith propounded the idea that free trade benefits both sides, and how the “invisible hand” of self-interest benefits society overall.
While it is true that free trade benefits both sides, there is no such thing as free trade in real world capitalism. Capitalistic self interest is all about driving the competition out of business or taking them over to create a monopoly to maximize profit.
 
Capitalism rocks!

We'd best enjoy it while we can, Toro....

...cause the idol of the Democrat Party is gonna get rid of capitalism....
....he's just not quite certain what he'll replace it with!
(Oops...did I just end a sentence with a preposition???)



Michael Moore tells CNN's Anderson Cooper that capitalism as we know it is over. Moore say capitalism is where "the problem" is. Moore was broadcasting from "Occupy Oakland."

"So, let's not use the old definition where we think -- when we say capitalism, we're talking about 2011. 2011 capitalism is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many. That's what happened, and that's what people are tired of. Which is too bad for the capitalists because I think a lot of people, perhaps in this crowd, probably used to support the 'old-style' of capitalism," Moore said on CNN.

"So, what system do you want?" Anderson Cooper asked Moore.

"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system. This movement, this movement in the next year, or two, or few years is going to create a democratic economic system. That's the most important thing. Whatever we come up with it has to have at its core -- the American people are going to be the one's controlling this economy. We're going to have a say, a big say, the say in how this economy is run," Moore said.

Moore says the Occupy group and himself have "declared" the current economic system as over. "It's just a matter of time until we make that happen," Moore said.
Michael Moore: We're Going To Replace Capitalism As We Know It | RealClearPolitics
 
#3. they left out what happened to that unbridled wealth in 1929. Capitalism has created monopolies in which became so powerful they rivaled the nation. They abused third world nations and finally their bankrupt ideals of lassier-faire were brought home to roost.
Today Americans have a more even playing field to promote their ideas and products through the inernet. Competing against mega-corporations make it so the playing field is rough, profits low.

Craigslist is a great spot.
 
Last edited:
1. The Social Gospel enthusiasts cloak their aims in the language of religion, and suggest that the alternative is the evil “profit motive,” … and capitalism. Yet, morality is actuality at the center of capitalism. Early economic thinker Adam Smith famously wrote about economic concepts in “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” in 1776.

a. Smith propounded the idea that free trade benefits both sides, and how the “invisible hand” of self-interest benefits society overall.
While it is true that free trade benefits both sides, there is no such thing as free trade in real world capitalism. Capitalistic self interest is all about driving the competition out of business or taking them over to create a monopoly to maximize profit.

No, that is what the government is all about. Monopolies are impossible without the force of government.
 
1. The Social Gospel enthusiasts cloak their aims in the language of religion, and suggest that the alternative is the evil “profit motive,” … and capitalism. Yet, morality is actuality at the center of capitalism. Early economic thinker Adam Smith famously wrote about economic concepts in “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” in 1776.

a. Smith propounded the idea that free trade benefits both sides, and how the “invisible hand” of self-interest benefits society overall.
While it is true that free trade benefits both sides, there is no such thing as free trade in real world capitalism. Capitalistic self interest is all about driving the competition out of business or taking them over to create a monopoly to maximize profit.

No, that is what the government is all about. Monopolies are impossible without the force of government.
Monopolies have always existed on their own and then they proceed to monopolize the government later on to protect their existence. As always, CON$ put the cart before the horse. Monopolies use the wealth generated by their monopoly to buy the government, without the wealth generated by their monopoly they would not have the money to purchase their puppet politicians.
 
While it is true that free trade benefits both sides, there is no such thing as free trade in real world capitalism. Capitalistic self interest is all about driving the competition out of business or taking them over to create a monopoly to maximize profit.

No, that is what the government is all about. Monopolies are impossible without the force of government.
Monopolies have always existed on their own and then they proceed to monopolize the government later on to protect their existence. As always, CON$ put the cart before the horse. Monopolies use the wealth generated by their monopoly to buy the government, without the wealth generated by their monopoly they would not have the money to purchase their puppet politicians.

I don't know how many times I have had this argument on this board, and every single time I have won by default. Why don't you prove me wrong by showing me any example of a monopoly that existed without government sanction. One would think that would be easy since monopolies are so natural.
 
Capitalism came with liberalism and is, thus far the best economic system devised, but it has some problems. The first problem has been keeping capitalism, capitalism.
Too often capitalists attempted to destroy their competition thereby destroying capitalism, so regulation seems to be needed. Another problem is the business cycles, how to prevent and/or how to cure. So far we have only Keynes.
The third, as Friedman said, capitalism is based on greed. And it seems capitalism brings out the greed in people and the greediest will eat the non-greedy alive. Capitalism seems to destroy some of charity of mankind?
 
#3. they left out what happened to that unbridled wealth in 1929. Capitalism has created monopolies in which became so powerful they rivaled the nation. They abused third world nations and finally their were brought home to roost.
Today Americans have a more even playing field to promote their ideas and products through the inernet. Competing against mega-corporations make it so the playing field is rough, profits low.

Craigslist is a great spot.

1. #3 refers to the period when Marxism was taking hold. Did you see "But by the early 20th century..."?
BTW...if you have time, you should investigate the link in #3.

2. "Capitalism has created monopolies in which became so powerful..."
Absolutely true. That's the reason for the 'Trust Busters,' Roosevelt and Taft.

But Wilson used the excesses of capitalism to create his own excesses: Progressivism, which which has depleted the freedom and liberty of the individual

3. " They abused third world nations..."
Elucidate?

4. "...bankrupt ideals of lassier-faire..."
Specify?

5. "Today Americans have a more even playing field..."
So, you agree with the red tape and regulations under which business is buried?
You're happy with the degree to which government has abused the enumerated powers?
The size and power of government, and the delegation of power to bureaus and agencies?

6. "Competing against mega-corporations make it so the playing field is rough, profits low."
And you are in favor of the crony capitalism, the government-big business complex, that prevent small businesses and innovation from competing?
 
No, that is what the government is all about. Monopolies are impossible without the force of government.
Monopolies have always existed on their own and then they proceed to monopolize the government later on to protect their existence. As always, CON$ put the cart before the horse. Monopolies use the wealth generated by their monopoly to buy the government, without the wealth generated by their monopoly they would not have the money to purchase their puppet politicians.

I don't know how many times I have had this argument on this board, and every single time I have won by default. Why don't you prove me wrong by showing me any example of a monopoly that existed without government sanction. One would think that would be easy since monopolies are so natural.
I do know and the number is ZERO!!!

I have always used Rockefeller's oil monopoly as an example of not only a monopoly existing before they took control of the government, but also the ability of a monopoly's being able to dominate an industry in spite of all government attempts to prevent the monopoly from forming in the first place and, after formed, maintaining control in spite of all attempts by government to break up the monopoly. You always cut and run from my example.
 
We'd all still be living in caves if it wasn't for capitalism.

"Or regarding prehistoric times, Reiner asks, “Did you have a national anthem?” Brooks: “Each cave had a national anthem.” Reiner: “Do you remember what yours was?” Brooks: “I certainly do. You don’t forget a national anthem. ‘Let ’em all go to hell except Cave 76!’"

Read more: None finer than bits from Reiner - NYPOST.com
 
Monopolies have always existed on their own and then they proceed to monopolize the government later on to protect their existence. As always, CON$ put the cart before the horse. Monopolies use the wealth generated by their monopoly to buy the government, without the wealth generated by their monopoly they would not have the money to purchase their puppet politicians.

I don't know how many times I have had this argument on this board, and every single time I have won by default. Why don't you prove me wrong by showing me any example of a monopoly that existed without government sanction. One would think that would be easy since monopolies are so natural.
I do know and the number is ZERO!!!

I have always used Rockefeller's oil monopoly as an example of not only a monopoly existing before they took control of the government, but also the ability of a monopoly's being able to dominate an industry in spite of all government attempts to prevent the monopoly from forming in the first place and, after formed, maintaining control in spite of all attempts by government to break up the monopoly. You always cut and run from my example.

The Standard Oil faux monopoly was losing market share long before the government got worried about it, it would have collapsed under its own weight if the government hadn't stepped in to break it up, thus preserving major portions of it to this day.
 
I don't know how many times I have had this argument on this board, and every single time I have won by default. Why don't you prove me wrong by showing me any example of a monopoly that existed without government sanction. One would think that would be easy since monopolies are so natural.
I do know and the number is ZERO!!!

I have always used Rockefeller's oil monopoly as an example of not only a monopoly existing before they took control of the government, but also the ability of a monopoly's being able to dominate an industry in spite of all government attempts to prevent the monopoly from forming in the first place and, after formed, maintaining control in spite of all attempts by government to break up the monopoly. You always cut and run from my example.

The Standard Oil faux monopoly was losing market share long before the government got worried about it, it would have collapsed under its own weight if the government hadn't stepped in to break it up, thus preserving major portions of it to this day.
So now you are claiming that the government is anti-monopoly. My, my my, how quickly the worm turns from government sanctioning monopoly to government breaking up a monopoly.
 
Adam Smith on Taxes

Although he lived in the 1700s, Adam Smith is still known and revered today for his work on free-market economics, including taxation. If federal, state, and local governments would follow Smith’s policy prescriptions, more economic wealth would be created. According to many economists today, Smith remains the best tax economist of all time.

Adam Smith is best known for the first theorem of welfare economics--an unfettered market will automatically, as if by an “invisible hand,” allocate a nation’s resources in the most efficient manner possible. Smith’s theories of taxation follow from that principle. Taxes should be levied only to support a limited government and should satisfy four maxims: equity, transparency, convenience, and efficiency. According to Smith, nations that maintain free markets and limited taxes will maximize their wealth.

Smith believed taxes should support four legitimate functions: national defense, justice, universal education, and “good roads and communications.” All four functions are “beneficial to the whole society and may therefore, without any injustice, be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society.” He added that user fees should help to cover roadway expenses, and that the rich should pay for their children’s education. He thus anticipated both social externalities and user-pay principles. Today, general revenues support many government programs that are not justified by these principles; Smith would surely view them as unwarranted interventions.

Four Tax Maxims

The first of Smith’s tax maxims, equity, reflects his belief that the wealthiest benefit most from government and can most afford to pay. “The rich should contribute to the public expense not only in proportion to their revenue,” Smith believed, “but something more than in that proportion.” Equity, according to Smith, requires progressive taxation. That principle is firmly embedded in the U.S. tax code today.

Adam Smith on Taxes | Heartland Institute
 
" The first of Smith’s tax maxims, equity, reflects his belief that the wealthiest benefit most from government and can most afford to pay. “The rich should contribute to the public expense not only in proportion to their revenue,” Smith believed, “but something more than in that proportion.” Equity, according to Smith, requires progressive taxation. That principle is firmly embedded in the U.S. tax code today. "


We already have a progressive taxation; the question is how progressive should it be, relative to the economic conditions.
 
Adam Smith wrote, in book five of the Wealth of Nations:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
Logically, an equitable tax (government revenues), combined with Public assistance for the poor (government expenditures), would be both equitable "up front", whilst "progressively" benefiting poorer people.
 
careful consideration of context, for Adam's Smith's statement about "progressive" taxes, shows that Smith was advocating "luxury taxes" & "necessity tax-breaks":
Smith preferred that taxation should fall, where possible, on luxuries rather than basic necessities. Housing is a necessity but housing came in all levels of opulence and was therefore treatable as a luxury for some taxpayers, who in consequence should may more tax on their houses and palaces.
Logically, a tax which was equitable (government revenue), combined with progressive Public assistance (government expenditure), could be both equitable, "proximately" (tax collection); and progressive, "ultimately" (end result). Take money from everybody equitably; then spend the taxes for Public benefit.

Adam Smith's Lost Legacy: Context is Important When Quoting Adam Smith
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top