What Capitalism has Done for the Common Man.

[Publius1787]

What Capitalism has Done for the Common Man

A great video that shows the increase in human advancement. I credit capitalism!

Me too ! murkin style in particular !
.

Ooooohhh, nuclear weapons! Great example! How many world wars have we had since the dawn of the nuclear age? Did the cold war ever turn hot? Can you imagine how many lives nuclear weapons have saved in that context? What about nuclear energy, nuclear powered naval forces, and other advancements in technology? In the context of human history, adjusting for population among other factories, the past 60 years have been the most peaceful in human history!!! Thanks to nuclear weapons and capitalism! Great point!

By the way, no doubt you know that the civilian casualties in the Battle of Okinawa nearly surpasses both atomic bombs combined in Japan. Why? 1) Inaccurate naval and aerial bombardment. 2) the Japanese pressed their young and elderly noncombatents to make up for lost numbers. 3) The Japanese shot any of their own civilians who made their way to the American lines for food, water, and medical aid. 4) The Japanese expected their own civilians to commit suicide if American forces took their town, and if they did not, they were murdered without regard to age or sex. Just imagine how many Japanese lives were saved by those two atomic bombs!

 

[Publius1787]

Limited resource theories, or, classical economics, never takes in to account technology, innovation, or efficiency. One of the few things Adam Smith didn’t take in to account believe it or not.

I'm fairly certain classical economics takes technology into account. It's right their in the function!

Y = A(K^a,L^b)

And all economics treats technology, innovation and increased efficiencies as shorthand synonyms.

Charles Cobb, who developed that theory in the early 1900's, is by no means a classical economist.

 

[miami_thomas]

"Didn’t you say we need to stop the old and start the new?"

Certainly! Nothing in the other posts said what I wanted, only made statements or posed questions about conditions.

Perhaps by looking at how things work and when they don't, honestly and without doctrinal blinders, we may arrive at a new beginning.

Problem is we do not have a clear definition of what a successful government is. Then with even the definitions we do have they are all different and opposing views.

 

[miami_thomas]

The question about alternatives was sincere and not a trick or anything.

I've used small c all my life and see nothing inherently wrong with it. I also see that uses of it have led to an untenable point in human history. I would be interested in alternatives in economics as in technology and politics. I intuit that we are in a new epoch as that when the renaissance evolved from medieval times. We need to consciously change things for the better or take it in the neck for allowing outdated thinking to destroy us.

capitalism is new communism is the old.

capitalism will trend toward socialism without fascism to shear less productive individuals from the constituency. From there I see it breaking down... leaving corporate communism or some kind of short-lived fascist capitalism. Just a hard truth which will come to the front of this 'new epoch' with time.

That is all because of peoples fear in which people in the government use as an excuse to take things over. Most issues will work themselves out without government involvement but government wants to be involved.

 

[Publius1787]

The people

It must be noted that what Truthmatters means by "the people" he/she means it in the form of Maximilion Robespierre, Che Guvara, or the Bolshivicks.

 

[miami_thomas]

Capitalism often serves to uplift and enrich the common man.

Capitalisism sometimes serves to do just the opposite, and markets can not be expected to properly allocate nonmarket goods. That's where government's role arises.

For instance?

 

[miami_thomas]

capitalism needs oversite and regualtions to keep it from degenerating into a monied few controling everything.

It should be extremely limited.

 

[miami_thomas]

The people

First name a time in history that proves your point. Second people do not agree and tend to have their own interest as well. We should not allow a majority of to force things on everyone else. To do this we should ensure we have a small limited government.

 

[miami_thomas]

The same human tendency to dominate and gain power works in all human systems, whether it be business, politics, religion or almost whatever have you.
So, the same people who would dominate a capitalist system would dominate the control of it. It is the same type of person.
Evidently, it is not by attacking the institution that victory can be achieved. Human psychology must evolve.

Yes I wouldn’t hold my breath until that evolution. The only way for a majority of people to dominate is through the government. This is why it is extremely important to have a small limited government and have a heavy reliance on the free market. Sure freedom scares a lot but it is always better than the alternative.

 

[Publius1787]

"Didn’t you say we need to stop the old and start the new?"

Certainly! Nothing in the other posts said what I wanted, only made statements or posed questions about conditions.

Perhaps by looking at how things work and when they don't, honestly and without doctrinal blinders, we may arrive at a new beginning.

Problem is we do not have a clear definition of what a successful government is. Then with even the definitions we do have they are all different and opposing views.

Sure we do. Where government places equality before individual liberty we get neither. Where government places individual liberty before equality we get a great deal of both.

 

[miami_thomas]

"Didn’t you say we need to stop the old and start the new?"

Certainly! Nothing in the other posts said what I wanted, only made statements or posed questions about conditions.

Perhaps by looking at how things work and when they don't, honestly and without doctrinal blinders, we may arrive at a new beginning.

Problem is we do not have a clear definition of what a successful government is. Then with even the definitions we do have they are all different and opposing views.

Sure we do. Where government places equality before individual liberty we get neither. Where government places individual liberty before equality we get a great deal of both.

That is indeed your definition and I would agree with that definition. But my point is America right now would be split on that.

 

[8537]

In the context of human history, adjusting for population among other factories, the past 60 years have been the most peaceful in human history!!!

Can you explain how you arrived at that statistic?

 

[8537]

Limited resource theories, or, classical economics, never takes in to account technology, innovation, or efficiency. One of the few things Adam Smith didn’t take in to account believe it or not.

I'm fairly certain classical economics takes technology into account. It's right their in the function!

Y = A(K^a,L^b)

And all economics treats technology, innovation and increased efficiencies as shorthand synonyms.

Charles Cobb, who developed that theory in the early 1900's, is by no means a classical economist.

Cobb (and Douglas) wasn't a classical economist?

Surely you jest.

What branch of economic thought did Cobb and Douglas associate with?

 

[Publius1787]

In the context of human history, adjusting for population among other factories, the past 60 years have been the most peaceful in human history!!!

Can you explain how you arrived at that statistic?

An article I read in the WSJ many months ago Steven Pinker: Why Violence Is Vanishing - WSJ.com

 

[8537]

Capitalism often serves to uplift and enrich the common man.

Capitalisism sometimes serves to do just the opposite, and markets can not be expected to properly allocate nonmarket goods. That's where government's role arises.

For instance?

The Enclosure laws in England.

And do I really need to explain why the market doesn't properly allocate nonmarket goods?

really? I will if need be, but....

 

[8537]

In the context of human history, adjusting for population among other factories, the past 60 years have been the most peaceful in human history!!!

Can you explain how you arrived at that statistic?

An article I read in the WSJ many months ago Steven Pinker: Why Violence Is Vanishing - WSJ.com

Wow! That's a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it. I enjoyed how he laid out commerce, government and "cosmopolitanism", though I found the last a bit harder to believe.

The most obvious of these pacifying forces has been the state, with its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A disinterested judiciary and police can defuse the temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge and circumvent the self-serving biases that make all parties to a dispute believe that they are on the side of the angels.

We see evidence of the pacifying effects of government in the way that rates of killing declined following the expansion and consolidation of states in tribal societies and in medieval Europe. And we can watch the movie in reverse when violence erupts in zones of anarchy, such as the Wild West, failed states and neighborhoods controlled by mafias and street gangs, who can't call 911 or file a lawsuit to resolve their disputes but have to administer their own rough justice.

Another pacifying force has been commerce, a game in which everybody can win. As technological progress allows the exchange of goods and ideas over longer distances and among larger groups of trading partners, other people become more valuable alive than dead. They switch from being targets of demonization and dehumanization to potential partners in reciprocal altruism.

 

[francoHFW]

Nobody's against capitalism, just savage, corrupt, cronyism Pub capitalism, epitomized by Neocon Voodoo Reaganism, which has slowly fegged the nonrich and the country- and then totally ruined the world. Let's do it again! Moron dupes, greedy idiot megarich Pubs... see sig pp1.

I know, let's cut taxes on the bloated rich, destroy Medicare and health reform, raise taxes and fees on the nonrich, let corporate cheats run wild, cut aid to states and localities, raise military spending to more than the rest of the world combined, and worry about the debt in 2035. Absolute idiocy, dupes.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm fairly certain classical economics takes technology into account. It's right their in the function!

Y = A(K^a,L^b)

And all economics treats technology, innovation and increased efficiencies as shorthand synonyms.

Charles Cobb, who developed that theory in the early 1900's, is by no means a classical economist.

Cobb (and Douglas) wasn't a classical economist?

Surely you jest.

What branch of economic thought did Cobb and Douglas associate with?

Neoclassical. The function you describe is a "neoclassical three stage production function." http://www.uky.edu/~deberti/prod/AgprodCD2007/CH11 revised A.pdf
Neoclassical growth model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[8537]

Charles Cobb, who developed that theory in the early 1900's, is by no means a classical economist.

Cobb (and Douglas) wasn't a classical economist?

Surely you jest.

What branch of economic thought did Cobb and Douglas associate with?

Neoclassical. The function you describe is a "neoclassical three stage production function." http://www.uky.edu/~deberti/prod/AgprodCD2007/CH11 revised A.pdf
Neoclassical growth model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you might be confused. The function is Wicksellian, later refined by Cobb and Douglas. Wicksell predated the earliest references to "neoclassical" by decades. Neoclassical economics refers most commonly to the economics of the post-WW2 synthesis - long after Cobb and Douglas refined the production function.

 

[Publius1787]

Can you explain how you arrived at that statistic?

An article I read in the WSJ many months ago Steven Pinker: Why Violence Is Vanishing - WSJ.com

Wow! That's a fascinating read. Thanks for sharing it. I enjoyed how he laid out commerce, government and "cosmopolitanism", though I found the last a bit harder to believe.

The most obvious of these pacifying forces has been the state, with its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A disinterested judiciary and police can defuse the temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge and circumvent the self-serving biases that make all parties to a dispute believe that they are on the side of the angels.

We see evidence of the pacifying effects of government in the way that rates of killing declined following the expansion and consolidation of states in tribal societies and in medieval Europe. And we can watch the movie in reverse when violence erupts in zones of anarchy, such as the Wild West, failed states and neighborhoods controlled by mafias and street gangs, who can't call 911 or file a lawsuit to resolve their disputes but have to administer their own rough justice.

Another pacifying force has been commerce, a game in which everybody can win. As technological progress allows the exchange of goods and ideas over longer distances and among larger groups of trading partners, other people become more valuable alive than dead. They switch from being targets of demonization and dehumanization to potential partners in reciprocal altruism.

It was a good read wasn't it? And I like the way you changed your premiss from the number of wars, deaths, etc, to ?? How capitalism had nothing to do with it?? Nevertheless, capitalism had everything to do with breaking up kingdoms, instituting a pelement in England, the sucess of the United States, why we have so few kingdoms today, and why we haven't had a major scale war since WWII. The places that diverge from free market capitalism is where you have monopolies, mafia, etc. The places that Government gets involved also corrupts the process. Have you ever seen "The Trap"

[ame]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=84wJlDC8--o[/ame]