As a student, I took economics 101 & 102. Quite a eye opener. The vast majority of people I know can't comprehend these basics. They get their economics from Eyewitless News.
I am an unapologetic Capitalist who believes in the very lightest touch by government. People who believe the wealth should be spread around don't seem to want to do the things necessary to obtain the wealth. Many are not capable, but that's where the highest touch comes in. Food, shelter, water. Everything else is up for grabs.
I have these conversations with people who benefit from capitalism, which affords them the ability to do so in luxury. Watching a movie about the Old West, I realized that as a woman, I am particularly happy about capitalism. I can't even properly sew a button on a shirt, so how in the world would I ever make the clothes?
Mostly, yes, but the state can improve markets with a light touch. American history is replete with examples: monopolies kill innovation. Once an industry actor has sufficient surplus capital to entrench market dominance rather than compete on price and quality, that sector has a problem. This is true from Boeing to Standard Oil. Financial markets exacerbate the swings, snowballing money where money is already being made, rather than what is best and most promising (made worse by passive investing).
Essentially, what Lina Kahn is doing at the FTC is exactly what the state should be doing, IMO. Not redistributing wealth via taxes, but ensuring that markets remain transparent and competitive.
As a gardener, I think of it like pruning. I can let my cucumbers and tomatoes run wild, and they'll create a lot of growth, but the fruits will be small, and late. A few precise trims, however, direct the energy towards the most worthy endeavors, and my harvests are bountiful.
Perhaps you've failed to notice, governments are the ultimate monopoly. No other monopoly can make you do business with them. Largely, if you want healthcare, education or a retirement plan, you have to take what the government provides. And you pay for it, even if you don't use it. Oh, wait... Those rich people' pay their fair share'. Yeah, right!
I agree, and, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that the state enforces a legal framework that (among other things) prevents and declots hyper-consolidation in markets, especially in supply chains with critical economic and national security dimensions.
Let's start with the monopolistic control that the two parties have on OUR governments. The two parties are not branches of government. They are greedy special interest groups that use government to force us to see to their wants and needs.
And as anyone who has the misfortune of using Microsoft products can tell you, that $3 trillion market cap is not indicative of quality and innovation. Some of their flagship software is borderline unusable in 2024.
I'm also sympathetic to the argument that the state creates monopolies through over-action. That's true, it does. Sometimes. But markets create their own monopolies, too. The goal is a light touch, just enough to keep markets competitive and transparent.
Hayek and Friedman both readily conceded the importance of a (minimal) state to maintain a legal framework for competitive markets. Completely unrestricted private enterprise begets the Dutch East India Company and Standard Oil, not the "blessings of liberty." Today, vertical monopolies drive up prices for consumers, and threaten national security. Thinking about baby formula a few years back, or Boeing today...
The Sherman Act is good law, and markets work better when it is properly enforced.
You removed your "period" so I guess I can respond now. I appreciate the arguments of Hayek & Friedman but I cannot argue with Hoppe´s criticisms of the pair. When taking everything back to first principles of property rights and the non-aggression principle, there is no logical justification for a state. I know it sounds extreme but have a look at Hoppe's work and see what you think.
I'm happy to check out your links when I have time. I always value good arguments, especially when I don't agree with them.
But property rights typically require state enforcement, and the non-aggression principle sounds like utopian claptrap that willfully ignores human nature.
Rothbard et al say that enforcing property rights doesn’t need a state. You have understood the non-aggression principle to be pacifism - it isn’t. Just read chapters 1,2 & 7 and you will feel liberated.
Governments should simply be the independent referees in the great match of life, snag is they are human and take MASSIVE BACKHANDERS from big players - but corruption happens in socialist systems also, just a lot worse.
If only people realized this. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it provides the most for the most people, and particularly, those willing to educate themselves and work hard. Socialism/Communism provide little but wealth destruction, poverty and (hopefully) freeloading.
i always find it interesting how capitalism's defenders will rhapsodize about its noble ethics, and then defend its excesses as regrettable but necessary. on the other side of the ledger—they'll decry socialism as an unfair and brutal *system*, and say nothing of its ethics.
the capitalist ethos says that it's morally justifiable for a few people to accumulate as much of society's resources as they can get their hands on, because there is no such thing as common resources. meanwhile, the socialist ethos *does* recognize the existence of common resources, and claims that the benefits derived from those resources should be held in common. this is an intellectually honest comparison.
these bad-faith readings of socialism always start from the perspective that the resources being socialized should rightfully be held in private hands, and that taking them away constitutes theft. this is begging the question: *why* should they be held in private? we can only answer that question honestly by comparing the ethical claims of the two philosophies, apples to apples.
It's a great shame all the idiots dreaming of how socialism could magically work can't have their own country to ruin. Oh but they frequently have, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, etc etc etc, always ends in death camps and vast piles of bodies.
Several years ago I saw a wonderful cartoon by a Spanish cartoonist who was decidedly in the socialist camp. I would not agree with his philosophy on everything economic. I acknowledge even Mises Freaks like our Poster here have good points. I don't find these containers -- "capitalist", "socialist" -- to be very illuminating. They're referents to underlying ideas about human organization and group psychology that are far more profound, I am reminded somewhat of Plato's cave allegory in The Republic. I'm sure everybody knows that, right?
The Spanish cartoonist drew a shipwrecked man floating in an ocean circled by a shark. The cartoon said "According to the laws of the market, if a shipwrecked man is hungry enough he will eat the shark."
Bitcoin is the ocean in this analogy, hardened un-game-able math and physics that is likely to outlast both the “capitalist” and the “communist” in the end
" You wait and let the others talk. Their biases against business appear right away in the repetition of the media’s latest calumny against the market, such as that gas station owners are causing inflation by jacking up prices to pad their pockets at our expense, or that Walmart is, of course, the worst possible thing that can ever happen to a community."
Millions of people in this country have careers that make little difference. If they, and their profession, disappeared, people might hardly notice. Among these professions are 'political science', 'DEI' 'journalism', and legal. Yes, we need lawyers, but we have way more as a percentage than just about any place.
I imagine, if I worked in a profession that had little connection to reality such that I couldn't really defend it, I might compensate by attacking the professions that DO relate to reality. That would be businessmen, contractors, farmers and tradesmen, to name a few.
It would help immeasurably if commentators would stop referring to the creations of National Central Banks as "money". It's not (and has not been since Roosevelt's gold confiscation) "money". Gold (and Silver) are money; what central banks create is Fiat Debt as a (fraudulent) money substitute.
Bitcoin literally doesn’t care if you label yourself “beautiful capitalist” or “raging communist” since it is permissionless and has no knowledge of identity
The only remedy is Jesus Christ, he alone imputes righteousness… not USD system nor whatever BRICS conjures up next … it is also why Bitcoin is so imperative at this juncture (permissionless, with presumption to impute righteousness)
As a student, I took economics 101 & 102. Quite a eye opener. The vast majority of people I know can't comprehend these basics. They get their economics from Eyewitless News.
Thank you.
Or Democrat talking points.
I am an unapologetic Capitalist who believes in the very lightest touch by government. People who believe the wealth should be spread around don't seem to want to do the things necessary to obtain the wealth. Many are not capable, but that's where the highest touch comes in. Food, shelter, water. Everything else is up for grabs.
If the government ran the farms, supermarkets and food supply, we'd all starve in a month.
Agreed
I have these conversations with people who benefit from capitalism, which affords them the ability to do so in luxury. Watching a movie about the Old West, I realized that as a woman, I am particularly happy about capitalism. I can't even properly sew a button on a shirt, so how in the world would I ever make the clothes?
Lee Kuan Yew just got rid of all the economists!
Great piece of writing!
Mostly, yes, but the state can improve markets with a light touch. American history is replete with examples: monopolies kill innovation. Once an industry actor has sufficient surplus capital to entrench market dominance rather than compete on price and quality, that sector has a problem. This is true from Boeing to Standard Oil. Financial markets exacerbate the swings, snowballing money where money is already being made, rather than what is best and most promising (made worse by passive investing).
Essentially, what Lina Kahn is doing at the FTC is exactly what the state should be doing, IMO. Not redistributing wealth via taxes, but ensuring that markets remain transparent and competitive.
As a gardener, I think of it like pruning. I can let my cucumbers and tomatoes run wild, and they'll create a lot of growth, but the fruits will be small, and late. A few precise trims, however, direct the energy towards the most worthy endeavors, and my harvests are bountiful.
Perhaps you've failed to notice, governments are the ultimate monopoly. No other monopoly can make you do business with them. Largely, if you want healthcare, education or a retirement plan, you have to take what the government provides. And you pay for it, even if you don't use it. Oh, wait... Those rich people' pay their fair share'. Yeah, right!
I agree, and, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm advocating that the state enforces a legal framework that (among other things) prevents and declots hyper-consolidation in markets, especially in supply chains with critical economic and national security dimensions.
Let's start with the monopolistic control that the two parties have on OUR governments. The two parties are not branches of government. They are greedy special interest groups that use government to force us to see to their wants and needs.
Microsoft....a very dominant player worldwide with hardly any competitors. They need pruning big time.
And as anyone who has the misfortune of using Microsoft products can tell you, that $3 trillion market cap is not indicative of quality and innovation. Some of their flagship software is borderline unusable in 2024.
I'm also sympathetic to the argument that the state creates monopolies through over-action. That's true, it does. Sometimes. But markets create their own monopolies, too. The goal is a light touch, just enough to keep markets competitive and transparent.
Can I please direct you to Chapter 9 of : https://mises.org/library/book/theory-socialism-and-capitalism where writes about monopolies and also the following talk by Hans Hermann Hoppe where he addresses your "light touch" theory: https://propertyandfreedom.org/paf-podcast/pfp101-hoppe-the-hayek-myth-pfs-2012/
Hayek and Friedman both readily conceded the importance of a (minimal) state to maintain a legal framework for competitive markets. Completely unrestricted private enterprise begets the Dutch East India Company and Standard Oil, not the "blessings of liberty." Today, vertical monopolies drive up prices for consumers, and threaten national security. Thinking about baby formula a few years back, or Boeing today...
The Sherman Act is good law, and markets work better when it is properly enforced.
You removed your "period" so I guess I can respond now. I appreciate the arguments of Hayek & Friedman but I cannot argue with Hoppe´s criticisms of the pair. When taking everything back to first principles of property rights and the non-aggression principle, there is no logical justification for a state. I know it sounds extreme but have a look at Hoppe's work and see what you think.
I'm happy to check out your links when I have time. I always value good arguments, especially when I don't agree with them.
But property rights typically require state enforcement, and the non-aggression principle sounds like utopian claptrap that willfully ignores human nature.
Rothbard et al say that enforcing property rights doesn’t need a state. You have understood the non-aggression principle to be pacifism - it isn’t. Just read chapters 1,2 & 7 and you will feel liberated.
They are welcome up say that, but history shows otherwise. I'll read it, impractical as it sounds.
Governments should simply be the independent referees in the great match of life, snag is they are human and take MASSIVE BACKHANDERS from big players - but corruption happens in socialist systems also, just a lot worse.
Please see today's https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/tides-turning-saturday-july-6-2024 for a rebuke of the FTC, the second this week since Chevron was overturned. The first was the dumb Title IX rework by HHS detailed in https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/post-chevron-friday-july-5-2024-c
I won't try to claim the FTC under Kahn is flawless, but they're doing mostly outstanding work.
There is no shortage of evidence that monopolies break markets to the disadvantage of everyone save the monopolist.
If only people realized this. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it provides the most for the most people, and particularly, those willing to educate themselves and work hard. Socialism/Communism provide little but wealth destruction, poverty and (hopefully) freeloading.
i always find it interesting how capitalism's defenders will rhapsodize about its noble ethics, and then defend its excesses as regrettable but necessary. on the other side of the ledger—they'll decry socialism as an unfair and brutal *system*, and say nothing of its ethics.
the capitalist ethos says that it's morally justifiable for a few people to accumulate as much of society's resources as they can get their hands on, because there is no such thing as common resources. meanwhile, the socialist ethos *does* recognize the existence of common resources, and claims that the benefits derived from those resources should be held in common. this is an intellectually honest comparison.
these bad-faith readings of socialism always start from the perspective that the resources being socialized should rightfully be held in private hands, and that taking them away constitutes theft. this is begging the question: *why* should they be held in private? we can only answer that question honestly by comparing the ethical claims of the two philosophies, apples to apples.
It's a great shame all the idiots dreaming of how socialism could magically work can't have their own country to ruin. Oh but they frequently have, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia, etc etc etc, always ends in death camps and vast piles of bodies.
Great share. Perfect exposition.
Lea Rockwell is a national treasure.
Several years ago I saw a wonderful cartoon by a Spanish cartoonist who was decidedly in the socialist camp. I would not agree with his philosophy on everything economic. I acknowledge even Mises Freaks like our Poster here have good points. I don't find these containers -- "capitalist", "socialist" -- to be very illuminating. They're referents to underlying ideas about human organization and group psychology that are far more profound, I am reminded somewhat of Plato's cave allegory in The Republic. I'm sure everybody knows that, right?
The Spanish cartoonist drew a shipwrecked man floating in an ocean circled by a shark. The cartoon said "According to the laws of the market, if a shipwrecked man is hungry enough he will eat the shark."
There's truth to that.
Bitcoin is the ocean in this analogy, hardened un-game-able math and physics that is likely to outlast both the “capitalist” and the “communist” in the end
So many yet to be rekt by it, here’s to black rock and coin base, cheers !
" You wait and let the others talk. Their biases against business appear right away in the repetition of the media’s latest calumny against the market, such as that gas station owners are causing inflation by jacking up prices to pad their pockets at our expense, or that Walmart is, of course, the worst possible thing that can ever happen to a community."
Millions of people in this country have careers that make little difference. If they, and their profession, disappeared, people might hardly notice. Among these professions are 'political science', 'DEI' 'journalism', and legal. Yes, we need lawyers, but we have way more as a percentage than just about any place.
I imagine, if I worked in a profession that had little connection to reality such that I couldn't really defend it, I might compensate by attacking the professions that DO relate to reality. That would be businessmen, contractors, farmers and tradesmen, to name a few.
It would help immeasurably if commentators would stop referring to the creations of National Central Banks as "money". It's not (and has not been since Roosevelt's gold confiscation) "money". Gold (and Silver) are money; what central banks create is Fiat Debt as a (fraudulent) money substitute.
I was already well into cranky Ancaphood by the time I read Hazlitt's book. Wish I'd read it sooner -- it would've saved me a lot of time!
This article sucks. Couldn’t get through more than half of this naked dripping propaganda. It’s humorous but I don’t think the writer intended that.
You can always count on Mises Freaks to preach their gospel.
Some of it is actually true!
About as much as the socialist zealot's preaching.
But neither side realizes that. Each thinks the other side is the problem.
Bitcoin literally doesn’t care if you label yourself “beautiful capitalist” or “raging communist” since it is permissionless and has no knowledge of identity
Bitcoin down 18% in just one month, a great 'investment'.
A brilliant essay QTR, many real gems in there. But whoa, it's way to long for most busy people, say the same in half the words please.
“The love of money is a root of all evil”
The only remedy is Jesus Christ, he alone imputes righteousness… not USD system nor whatever BRICS conjures up next … it is also why Bitcoin is so imperative at this juncture (permissionless, with presumption to impute righteousness)