| The dismal science|
|Competing Theme Parks|
|Rides And Rollercoasters|
“”Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
Capitalism is an economic system that is utilized in most countries of the world. Even in most countries where it is not accepted in theory, it is accepted in practice.
Most people agree that it has been more productive than any other economic system the world has tried, and requires comparatively small amounts of centralized oversight to keep it from running out of control. However, there is the fact that the benefits of this often fall disproportionately to the rich, with persistent (and in some cases dangerous) material and social divides in capitalist societies, and there are intellectuals that propose other economic systems are more just or can improve on capitalism. For example, some of the least unequal states are those that have adopted modified versions of capitalism that spread wealth without sacrificing overall prosperity, such as the Nordic countries and to a lesser extent, Canada.
In particular, capitalism is a far sight better than its predecessors, mercantilism and guilds, and has outlasted the idea of a command economy; it has also proven itself much more compatible with liberal ideals than either of these systems. There is a body of academic literature that suggests that capitalism may in fact be a prerequisite for the growth of progressive social values, or at the very least something that can help with their spread. On the other hand, there have been plenty of countries that loosened economic restrictions while maintaining violations of political and civil rights.
There is also a belief patterned on the democratic peace theory of liberal international relations that no two globalized, capitalist countries can or will go to war with each other, though this statement only tends to be true if you define "democracy" and "capitalism" such that the statement is true.
What exactly is capitalism?
- the right for each person to sell their labor (to another person)
- the right to do whatever one wishes with one's own property
This entails, in theory, that one does not have to work except on terms acceptable to oneself. However, this also means that employers do not have to provide work except on terms acceptable to them, so people are not free to set the terms of their employment and both parties must arrange a compromise that each finds acceptable. This concept of mutual benefit is an important idea in capitalist theory — the idea that no exchange will take place unless both parties benefit, barring fraud. However, this assumes that both parties to a contract have alternatives, that is, access to a competitive market. If a monopoly is established, or merchants conspire to fix the supply, then the price of a product can be artificially inflated. In theory, a competitor could now enter the market as they could offer the product at a cost lower than the inflated one - although in this case lobbyists often coerce government officials to bar or hinder their entry. It is often claimed that free-market capitalism leads to wealth accruing in the hands of a fewer as trade persists, although it can be shown that this is caused by the speculative nature of trade.
While the exact origins of the concept of private property are hard to trace, it's widely recognized that capitalism developed pretty organically (with few notable exceptions like vagabond laws, land appropriation and enclosure, private property rights) in the 18th century, possibly in popular response to Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke. Feudalism and (later) mercantilism had protected ruling economic classes in Europe reaching back to the 9th century. Capitalism slowly undid these centers of power as entrepreneurs convinced landowners to invest in business enterprises, developed its own means of production, contributed to increasing standards of living, and sometimes exploited the peasants for their cheap labor.
Capitalism has trucked along; there may have been a few people who disagreed along the way, but their state-capitalist country
implodedevolved naturally into a peace-loving Commonwealth of Independent States, so almost everybody - even those of an anarcho-capitalist persuasion - has written off the idea of a complete alternative. Capitalism is well known for inspiring such stoic and moral attitudes in the people who benefit from its fruits.
Capitalist societies in history
No societies of notable size have allowed for complete laissez-faire (or "leave it alone") capitalism. Moreover, no mainstream economists now view this as an admirable state of being, and even many ardent pro-capitalism economists view extreme minimization of the government as politically unfeasible. It became clear in the age of monopolistic trusts that, in a totally unregulated free market, there is nothing to keep the more powerful and wealthy from manipulating the economy. The effect of these manipulations is to close markets to competition and coerce workers into below-equilibrium wages, thereby making a totally free market a far cry from "free." The question has instead become to what extent societies and markets should be regulated. Three examples of this tension follow:
- United States of America: The United States has long been viewed as one of the freest economies in the world. Despite some not-insignificant increases in government size since the more laissez-faire 19th century, the US still ranks highly in economic freedom. The United States is (for now) the largest economy in the world, producing roughly 23% of world GDP. Most economists believe it is the relative freedom to start a business, secure property rights and stable political environment that allow for this growth. Other commentators believe this success is due to aggressive imperialism in which the US government bullies, bombs, and intimidates other nations into giving up resources. Yet others point to the tremendous natural resources available on US territory as the reason for this wealth. Probably a mix of all three.
- Singapore: This tiny city-state is rated one of the economically freest countries in the world, and it has obtained considerable wealth despite its lack of natural resources. However, the state (also known as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty") has draconian social laws that run contrary to the theory of free-market capitalism, restraining (for example) free trade in chewing gum. Singapore is also considered state-capitalist, which is but a hair away from the dreaded s-word.
- Japan: Since the end of World War II, Japan has flourished as a capitalist nation striving for more economic expansion. Following rebuilding under the Marshall Plan, Japan was internationally viewed as a rising power and a model for other countries to emulate. However, as predictable capitalists, Japan went into a recession in 1990. Unfortunately, they still haven't come out. It's hard to say exactly what is going on, but just to be safe wingnuts are blaming old people and their social safety net.
Capitalism and American politics
Conservatives and Republicans fancy themselves defenders of capitalism; although an innegligible amount of right-wing measures are indeed pro-free market (e.g., offshore drilling, reduced spending, reduction of income taxes, deregulation), the fact is that conservatives sometimes manage to as be hostile to capitalism as Democrats. Examples of this include George W. Bush's tariffs on steel, conservative think tanks coming up with such evil ideas such as Obamacare, and an ongoing War on Drugs that seems counter-intuitive if you claim to believe that free markets are great because people best know how to run their own lives.
In a similar vein, one could point out that Democrats have been as friendly to the free-market as the GOP, as seen in the Clinton administration's many neoliberal reforms, such as welfare reform and friendliness towards businesses. It wasn't all that great.
Capitalism and religion
Religious people involve themselves in politics all over the spectrum, usually claiming that God personally shares their political beliefs. For this reason, most of them are cranks and the "powers that be" appease them only as much as necessary to get their votes; hence, the Religious Right's failure to bring in a theocracy.
Although there is a strong tradition of religious involvement in centrist or left-wing politics (e.g., the early Christian church vs. the Roman Empire, Liberation theology, Christian democracy), in the United States most politicians who make religion an explicit part of their political identity are conservatives and adhere to a form of Christianity that fits these beliefs. This is ironic, because most of the particular policies that set the Religious Right apart from the secular right are contrary to the principles of free-market capitalism; however, knowing so would require reading and that's difficult.
Capitalism is rooted in the Lockean notion of self-ownership and self-determination, and there is little evidence that Locke was implying the government should be used to stop gay people from getting married or teenage girls from aborting their pregnancy. Christians seem to want capitalism in that they want BMWs and leather-bound Bibles, but if other people want to spend their money on cocaine and hookers then clearly freedom is going a little too far. Another layer of irony is added when you consider that Christ spoke out, in no uncertain terms, against what is considered today to be the extreme of capitalist doctrine. It took an act of staggering cognitive dissonance — helped along by the fact that, due to the influence of Marxism, anti-capitalist politics in the 20th century had become firmly associated with atheism — for Jesus to be portrayed as a long-haired version of Ronald Reagan. (Seriously, anybody who has not had the joy of asking a wealthy fundamentalist to explain Matthew 19:24 to them should get down to their nearest Baptist Church immediately and start asking around. It's the most awkward 15 seconds of half-remembered excuses.) Some, however, have actively attempted to reconcile theology and laissez-faire ideology as in the Reconstructionists' concept of "Christian economics."
A truly free market, which is based on self-ownership as opposed to the doctrine that all people are the chattel property of God, is a fundamentalist's worst dream; the only reason they sometimes pretend to defend it is because they can't spell "theocracy."
Max Weber, the pioneering sociologist, argued that Protestant religious sentiment (what he called the "Protestant work ethic") was a primary factor in the development of capitalism. Modern analyses insist only indirectly, through the increased literacy that it caused.
In most Muslim countries capitalism is actively opposed due to its Western roots, as is socialism for the same reason. Islamic economics serves as a substitute and draws direct influence from Quranic verses. Technically, these economics can be seen as third way economics, as they do advocate a limited free market economy while simultaneously taxing people to help the poor.
Criticisms of capitalism
Ideologies like socialism, communism, and fascism are all categorically opposed to free market capitalism for various reasons, such that it oppresses workers or spits in the face of tradition. Fascism, historically, kept in some facets of what it defined to be capitalism, such as formal private ownership (although vastly restricting what "ownership" means), while communism kept in some facets of what it defined to be capitalism, such as worker oppression.
Milder criticisms of unregulated capitalism are made by everyone except fanatical libertarians.
This stems from the observation that capitalism, at its heart, is about each person working to benefit themselves as much as possible, and without regulations to ensure that this benefit does not come at the expense of others, capitalism changes into something altogether different. Even the strongest proponents of capitalism among economists allow for government intervention to address, if nothing else, these kinds of negative externalities.
Quotes about capitalism
I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish -- but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist.- Ayn Rand, reactionary free-market devotee and Social Security user, Atlas Shrugged.
With all its flaws, capitalism remains the most productive economic engine we have yet invented. Like Churchill's line about democracy, it is the worst of all economic systems, except for all the others.- Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, June 22, 2009.
The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.- Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and destabilizer of the global financial system, PBS, October 10, 2000.
Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all.- John Maynard Keynes, British economist.
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.- Bertrand Russell, philosopher and mathematician.
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.- Adam Smith, notable anti-capitalist.
Capitalism and Godwin
Welcome to the Internet, where everything is a race to compare something you don't like to Hitler. Because of that, here are some quotes attributed to Hitler that are either supportive or critical of capitalism:
I am bound to say that private property can be morally and ethically justified only if I admit that men's achievements are different. Only on that basis can I assert: since men's achievements are different, the results of those achievements are also different. But if the results of those achievements are different, then it is reasonable to leave to men the administration of those results to a corresponding degree. It would not be logical to entrust the administration of the result of an achievement which was bound up with a personality either to the next best but less capable person or to a community which, through the mere fact that it had not performed the achievement, has proved that it is not capable of administering the result of that achievement. Thus it must be admitted that in the economic sphere, from the start, in all branches men are not of equal value or of equal importance.- Adolf Hitler, srslythebestlibertarian.
- Has Western capitalism failed?, BBC News
- The Political Economy of Hunger, Selected Essays by Jean Drèze, Amartya Sen and Athar Hussain
- The shit we have to deal with every day.
- An A-Z of business quotations, The Economist
- Thomas Friedman referred to this as the "McDonald's Effect."
- The Talented Mr. Madoff, The New York Times
- Behind the Enron Scandal, Time
- AMAZING FREAKOUT OVER XBOX 360
- How to steal gumballs out of the machine :P
- World Economic Outlook Database 2011, IMF
- Japan’s economy: From the “lost decade” to Abenomics, House of Commons Library
- George Bush, protectionist, The Economist
- Obamacare's Heritage, Wall Street Journal
- Sascha O. Becker and Ludger Wößmann. Was Weber Wrong? A Human Capital Theory of Protestant Economic History. Munich Discussion Paper No. 2007-7
- Snow Crash and Diamond Age in particular.
- Notably Jennifer Government and Syrup.
- Sceptical Essays (1928), Chapter 13
- The Wealth of Nations, Chapter IX, p. 117 (1776)
- The Political Economy of the Dead: Marx's Vampires, Wake Forest University
- A private statement made by Hitler on March 24, 1942. Cited in "Hitler's Secret Conversations." Translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. 1953. p. 294.
- Hitler's address to the Industry Club on January 26, 1932.