The Dangers of Capitalism?

[CreativeRandom]

Many people often speak of the "dangers" of capitalism - unsafe working conditions, little kids working, too many hours in a week, low wages, monotonous work, no health care.

This is really the big argument against laissez-faire. They may not say it, but frankly, its what it is. Even George Orwell was big into this.

Now, I know that government intereference and poverty truly caused all of this, not businesses. I would like some more specific information, and wondering if you guys could help me out - specifically, historical information (1920s and 1930s).

Now, it is obvious why such conditions existed after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and FDR's presidency - if you don't see so, you probably won't be of much help here (excuse me if I sound harsh but I'm tired of liberals).

So, two questions: The dangers that existed in the early 20th century exited - no doubt - but what exactly caused them before Harding, the last of the noninterfering presidnets (excuse me, forgot the exact word!)? I am not aware of what restrictions existed, but they did .... right? Or are all such horrors in the 20s and before the big government intereference of the 30s just chalked up and BS used to propel big government?

What other "horrors" does unrestricted business and laissez-faire economics supposedly bring? Do you agree, why, and use historical examples.

Thanks! Hopefully I can utilize this site for historical info to support conservatism, and spark some real conservative vs conservative debate.

[Toby06]

Hoo boy!

[Hypervigilant]

Ping for later reading

[vimto]

Well it seems to me that conservatism isn't about unchanging ideas but unchanging values. I don't know much about the American context but do put up with a little prattle...

The free market to be truly free must be an informed market. In other words people purchase items which acts through supply and demand as a vote, Now, we have to be aware of what it is we are buying. If conditions are sweatshop and abusive, the consumer can vote by not buying that product.

This means there must be good information available - thus the free market is tied up with free speech and an investigating media.

Now very often things CAN GET BETTER IN THE SHORT TERM, by bigger government. But it is the law of diminishing returns - in other words it is an illusion - but a persuasive one. Rules and regulations are rarely abrogated so the bureaucracy grows and stifles wealth creation.

From a neo-con viewpoint, (if I understand it) the issue is not the size of government in any absolute sense but he ability of government to protect freedoms and promote enterprise.

kind regards,

[wizardoz]

I don't have access to the literature here at work, but in Ayn Rand's essays on Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, there are footnotes on some of the essays with information on the real mortality rate of children working in factories in the 1890s. You'd need to find that book and trace those footnotes, though.

[CreativeRandom]

Haha, I'm actually reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged right now... I know, I'm late.

I saw on her website there was going to be a speech by a representative that conservatives are hurting capitalism - is this for real or is it like the Larry Elders stance where conservatives and liberals are so alike they are both harmful, even if one is slightly better. Anyways, slightly off topic...

So are you guys saying it is all chalked up? That is really the only solution I can come up with in regards to the "terrible conditions" of the early 20th century during industrialization.

I talked to someone about it today, and they said all nations go through this in their industrialization period - hell for workers, good for all - and it ends with the nation being on top, out of the "hell" of industrialization, and a 1st class nation. While he was not expressing hiw own view, just something he heard about (in reference to India and China today), I disagree completely as to that being the reason.

So what are the "Dangers" of total capitalism? There has never been a truly 100% completely free market. The freest this nation may have ever had was the moment Lincoln abolished slavery - but that still isn't even true because he imposed the first ever income tax. Mind you, it was not a true free market beforehand because women couldn't vote, and black people were slaves. The frustration of the abscurity!

[SunkenCiv]

---

The Birth of Plenty: How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created by William Bernstein

---

[SunkenCiv]

Many people often speak of the "dangers" of capitalism - unsafe working conditions, little kids working, too many hours in a week, low wages, monotonous work, no health care. This is really the big argument against laissez-faire.

Imagine how things changed between primarily agrarian societies, with its wall to wall health care, no child labor, short work week, widespread wealth -- and industrial societies.

Just a little joke to illustrate a point. :') The medieval Black Plague led to mechanization due to the labor shortage; industrialization led to urban growth, which necessitated colonization to avoid (as it was thought) starvation and overpopulation; waste products from one industry sometimes wound up as products in a new industry; growth and change became commonplace.

Farming is still hard work, but engines made mechanized agriculture possible, and what is now the US has gone from a 100 per cent agrarian society four centuries ago to at least 98 per cent non-agrarian. Agricultural surplus is the basis for civilization. That probably explains why the airbrained hippies from the 60s wanted to get rid of industrialization, and their airbrained older versions want to get rid of its trappings. Getting rid of personal transportation (for example) and internal combustion requires labor-intensive farming. Look, everybody, 100 per cent employment. We'd put a hammer and sickle on the flag to emphasize that everyone's now living in the workers' paradise, but didn't want to be obvious about it.

Now, it is obvious why such conditions existed after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and FDR's presidency...

Hawley-Smoot passed in 1930, and contributed to an ongoing disaster which began with the upheaval in WWI. It's clear that the post-WWI pubbie presidents weren't laissez-faire at all, or they wouldn't have tried to "protect" everyone, including by suddenly increasing reserve requirements in the banking system, leading to the bursting of the stock bubble and the 1929 stock market crash. And FDR doubled 'em in 1937. Pitchfork Pat wants to return to all that.

What other "horrors" does unrestricted business and laissez-faire economics supposedly bring?

Free trade, oh, no, shiver me timbers. OTOH, loss of control over major resources, including in particular the food supply, but more obviously the energy supply, is a consequence (and not necessarily temporary; seldom do governments coexist with a political vacuum) of laissez-faire politics. The Luddites want to eliminate farm subsidies (but only when they are not in political control; this too can change) in pursuit of some kind of back to the land and return to a politically correct family farm which has never existed. The laissez-fairies want to eliminate farm subsidies in order to further enrich themselves, while loftily claiming it is to restore a market economy which has never been lost.

[CreativeRandom]

Excuse me, I am unfamiliar with the format here.

Quote SunkenCiv:
"clear that the post-WWI pubbie presidents weren't laissez-faire at all, or they wouldn't have tried to "protect" everyone"

Actually, after Wilson we had a strong conservative run. Calvin Coolidge, my personal favorite president (and should be all conservatives' favorite) was extremely conservative and as laissez-faire as you can get. Harding, despite having some personal issues, was also a supreme president that was the last of the no-intereference-federalist-restrictionist presidents. Hoover however, had some fatal flaws and in my opinion, was a democrat.

If you check the track record, they imposed no acts against business (harding and coolidge).

"leading to the bursting of the stock bubble and the 1929 stock market crash."

There was no "crash" at these times, and in relative terms, those "crashes" were pretty mild. Notice also, that these "crashes" coincide directly with the dates the Smoot-Hawley tariff act passed certain legislation (Passed in the House, then Senate, then Presidential approval). That is probably the best example I can think of in the support that the economy reacts immediately, and nothing is slow or gradual (such as those liberal idiots who think we don't have time to wait for the revenues from tax cuts).

So are you against laissez-faire? Your post seems to be all over the place, but excuse me as I am in a rush at the moment. You mentioned that laissez-faire is bad, such as energy industry. Well, if you are really saying that, you must be deluded. Honestly, you come off as alot more knowledgeable than someone who'd say that. I think I can beat your argument in one phrase....

Tennessee Valley Authority.

Have a good day!

[SunkenCiv]

There was no "crash" at these times, and in relative terms, those "crashes" were pretty mild.

No crash in 1929? Or only pretty mild crashes? You really don't know what you're talking about. Sorry I tried to help.

[CreativeRandom]

On "Black Thursday" the market only dropped 33 points. Anyways, I already know all about the Depression. I'm just wondering about the "Dangers of capitalism" and why is the Roaring 20s industrialization viewed so negatively by liberals. Even high school history books can't deny how great the 20s were.

The market went to shit, no doubt, but it was over time. It was not a crash so drastic that the market simply died, and it did not come out of nowhere. Take a look at newspaper headlines on the Black days and you'll see something about the Smoot-Hawley Act.

[mnehring]

bump for later- There is an interesting economic and historical disconnect in the premise behind the thread.

[mnehring]

Just to expound the conversation a little.. there is an historical disconnect between the cause and effects of the 'great depression'... The Smoot-Hawley act is often misquoted as part of a cause, but most economists agree that Smoot was actually a result of the impending crash..

One of the real problems that was indirectly related to Smoot-Hawley was the transitional change from a protectionist economy to a global economy. It isn't really addressed, but the 'Great Depression' wasn't just a US event, but in some form or other, was across most of the connected world as countries tried to effectively deal with global trade after WWI.

The funny part is that there are a lot of modern day liberal/dems who try to use the Smoot-Hawley as a way of 'defeating' modern Republican/Capitalism philosophy because it happened to be a Republican (Hoover) who pushed this act. This is a fifth grade level of understanding of history and really shows the lack of understanding the left has and how they are still fighting battles that are almost 100 years old. The reality is that it's the modern left who've embraced the protectionist attitude that is proposed by Smoot-Hawley and are almost a century out of date in their understanding of economics and its employer/worker relationships.

[mnehring]

Just an added note to make you laugh: Do you know there are actually leftist websites out there who encourage people to use Smoot-Hawley as a way to 'defeat' Republicans? Just the fact they use this shows their ignorance of economics and history.