It is logical but there is nothing "moral" about capitalism to save it from its fatal flaws ... rabid individualism and the centralization -- merger & acquisition -- that not only obliterates respect for the individual (the "masses" we've been slashing) but the "free enterprise" of all but those most closely connected to the Central Planners ... de facto state corporations.
Capitalism -- like socialism -- is an economic and therefor purely materialistic construct. Nothing "moral" about it. It's simply more just than socialism, that's all.
"Sigh." If only comrade Stalin had had the sense to spin it conservativly he might have his very own monument on the Mall today.
This thread promises to be one of my favorites of all time: "What kind of shower is this? What's that stuff coming out of those holes in the wall..........ssssss..."
Bravefart (with dying breath): "FREEEEEEEEE FLOW OF CAPITAL AT CAREFULLY CALIBRATED MARKET PRICES!!!!!"
However, the preferences and information themselves evolve. Preferences include morality. It is the institution of capitalism that allows that evolution to take place least obtrusively. Regardless of whether one agrees with the conclusion of the last sentence, there is, in fact, a relation between all economic institutions, including capitalism, and morality. It is logical but there is nothing "moral" about capitalism to save it from its fatal flaws See the above-given remark.
The following is on an even shakier ground.
... rabid individualism This, most certainly, has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.
...and the centralization ????????
This is what characterizes socialism, not capitalism. I am sure you know that.
-- merger & acquisition -- Nothing to do with capitalism: these very things occur and are advocated by central planners as well. It's just that central planners are more brutal and less effective when they implement M&A.
Further, your statement about M&A is one-sided --- through no fault of your own. This is because you hear from the press and "pundits" like Buchanan about only one part of the process. Were M&A the only process in the economy, you are correct --- we would by now how one company, "Firm U.S.A." We do not. This is because M&A is only the first stage of industry restructuring. At the second stage, business of the newly formed enterprise are sold or otherwise divested. Most of them, contrary to the press, survive.
The socially unpleasant part is the correction of wages that occurs in the process. This is a difficult social issue rather than purely economic. Many of the problems occur because labor becomes overpriced due to the overwhelming power of trade unions, coupled with the general ignorance of the populous. Specifically, the union representatives never trust management's anticipation of bad times, most often not even understanding how their own companies blend into the economy. Hence, they demand "their portion of the pie." When the troubles hit, they, similarly, prefer any other managerial actions rather than pay cuts. The management is often left with no alternative but layoffs. Even here, they are often restricted by past agreements. With no corrective action, the company starts going down, becomes cheap, is bought by someone else who --- and this is key --- is not bound by past agreements. It is only after M&A that one can lay off labor. To use Dostoyevsky’s words, "And who is at fault? Who is at fault?"
In the foregoing, please note, I am not suggesting that labor is the only problem: management, too, often does not guess right. The points are (i) you only hear about a minute part of the process and judge the whole process based on that part; (ii) all of these features are not exclusive to "capitalism;" and, (iii) difficulties are largely extra-economic. This last point may be broadly stated as a question, how does one govern and ignorant populous?
Finally, in the present climate of cynicism, you never hear about the victory that capitalism can claim as its own: unprecedented, unparalleled job creation. When you do hear about this in the press, it is passed as "human interest," or oddity. In 1999, for instance, corporations were luring undergraduates with expensive dinners and gala concerts. Why? Because the explosion in job creation created an enormous shortage of even unqualified labor. Now, when was the last time you heard this stated so?
that not only obliterates respect for the individual (the "masses" we've been slashing) The "masses" part is factually incorrect. The "respect" part is related to the question of who bares the responsibility and, actually, morality in general. Most often a laid off worker ends up finding another job at a smaller, perhaps, salary. Even this is not necessarily a pay cut, considering the rather generous severance packages. But even if so, why does this "obliterate respect?" And whose? Certainly not mine. My respect to you is not predicated on what you are making at your job. This may have become an American value, but it has nothing to do with capitalism.
but the "free enterprise" of all but those most closely connected to the Central Planners ... de facto state corporations. This is not even close to reality. You may want to study a bit more how these institutions actually function.
Capitalism -- like socialism -- is an economic and therefor purely materialistic construct. It is not only a construct but also a social institution. Once again, you disregard the fact that all ethics of the people are included, in principle, into the economy via preferences of the agents.