Posted on 02/17/2012 8:05:14 AM PST by pinochet
One major difference... Individual Capitalism has plenty of competition. Government's tend to shoot competitors.
I think he might have said “sell” us the rope, but I could be wrong.
Another anti patriotic company is the Associated Press. It is the leading wire service in America - but all wire service journalism has the same effect of homogenizing journalism into a cabal of self-promoters. Without the unifying influence of the wires services, journalism was an ideologically diverse institution. There are still individual editorial pages - e.g., the Wall Street Journal's - which differ from the default wire service perspective, but the body of the newspaper is always dominated by the self-interest of journalism as an institution.Were it not so, it would be impossible for journalism to sustain its fraudulent "objective journalist" imposture. Thinking you are objective is the very essence of subjectivity. Yet there are no journalists in good standing who dissent from the "objectivity" claim for journalism. That is entirely understandable when you consider that anyone who does dissent from it is instantly and permanently blackballed from acceptance as a journalist.
A journalism which is dedicated to the proposition that journalists are inherently objective is an institution whose default stance is hypercritical intolerance of political dissent or of any suggestion that actual performance against a bottom line is equivalent - never mind superior to - the journalist's criticism. That implies that journalists think critics should run everything, notwithstanding their ignorance of the constraints within which a businessman must operate. Thus, journalists promote socialism and denigrate capitalism.
If you want to criticize capitalism in general and every executive in particular, you will have the full backing of wire service journalism. And they will call you any positive label they can think of - anything but "objective," of course, so long as you do not wear a journalist's hat. But their idea of a positive label is "moderate" or "progressive" or "liberal."
But if that's your stance, don't be shocked if you get called a "socialist" here.
Is it ok to criticize God & the Ten Commandments without being labeled an atheist?
Correct. It is what the economy will be in an environment with individual freedoms. It is not a "designed" 'system' like Marxism. Anyone like Marx who thinks he is smart enough to figure out a system to manage billions of transactions per day is just a foolish as someone who thinks they can control the universe.
What Adam Smith described in 1776 was not his prescription for an economy. It was simply how an economy would work when left alone. It is a natural order... the way people will interact, left to their own devices.
The only catch is that when society becomes larger, there must be an referee to set basic rules, call penalties, and keep the playing field level. That becomes the government's responsibility, and by nature, government is corrupt.
We have allowed the governments to become far too corrupt and to go too far beyond their duty as neutral referees and the natural system has become severely distorted as a result.
The problem is not Capitalism. The problem is corrupt governments.
“Sounds like a god excuse to have as small a government as possible. It’d be a lot easier to keep an eye on.”
Good point. Also, the fewer sheep, the less temptation for wolves. Small, lean government.
The topic is corruption. A lot of smart people get scammed all the time, such as people who trusted AAA ratings based on the “reasearch” of top firms.
Adam Smith wrote two books. The later better known one is “The Wealth of Nations”. The earlier, less well known one is the “Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Adam Smith saw it as a two-volume set. Unfortunately, too few people today see it that way.
Sure, it’s certainly ok to attack aspects of Capitalism without being a Socialist. I can give numerous examples:
1) In pure capitalism cars would be built as cheaply as possible - no pollution controls. I had an experience with that a while back in Europe, in an underground parking garage that was so choked with fumes, that my rental car barely got through it...and never ran right after. I like the fact that toxic pollutants have been virtually eliminated from exhaust, and no, that would not have happened without the government requiring it.
2) As others have said, you have Crony Capitalism. The most egregious examples are when governors (as in Texas and Indiana) sign monopoly-protected highway transfer deals that leave taxpayers at the mercy of these companies...which typically charge 25 to 35 cents PER MILE to drive on these highways.
3) Also, banking. I’m convinced that bankers are simply UNABLE to protect the money of depositors without regulation. Yes, the government was a factor in the latest meltdown, but the banks were the biggest factor. No one in their right minds can think that an adjustable rate mortgage where the principal on the loan actually INCREASES over the first 5 years (not to mention the interest rate) is EVER going to get paid back according to terms...particularly when the loan amount is 5 to 10 times the borrower’s income. But the banks did it, and the ENTIRE SYSTEM supported them, including the insurers. Bankers should NEVER be left to themselves.
Those are my examples.
I think the off shoring of our manufacturing base a form of a-political capitalism gone wild. My unfettered support of capitalism ends at the waters edge. Call me a commie for not wanting to trade with commies, flame away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.