Capitalism != Merchantilism
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Bob_Robertson Oct 06, 2007 8:44 AM EDT |
Just to make sure that the terms stay clear, Capitalism does not equal Merchantilism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. That's all. It is the antithesis of Communism, where the labor of each is the property of all. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" does not permit an individual to say "No." Most people confuse Capitalism with Merchantilism. Merchantilism is a system which tries to spread out risks and focus benefits by using the power of government to tax and license. For instance, a protectionist tariff is a Merchantilist program, because everyone pays more for a commodity while a few who produce the commodity on the correct side of an arbitrary line make fantastic profits. Spending tax money on "internal improvements" are another example. The few who utilize the "improvement" are subsidized, while the cost of the "improvement" is spread out over a large number of people. The "Railroad Barons" of the 19th Century were not Capitalists at all, the were actually chasing government subsidies and favors. The horrid corruption and waste were very real, fueled by tax subsidies and government monopoly grants. Merchantilism also involves licensure, so that the benefits of certain actions (for instance, being a plumber) are restricted to certain people, who make monopoly profits thereby. Many professions have licensing requirements, each of which restricts entry and thereby increases the profits of those who do enter the field while increasing unemployment for those who do not. Pervasive Merchantilism is now called Fascism, a style of state control which features titular ownership of the factors of production, but in name only. Make a wrong move, and the state takes their property back. Many Socialists also believe in Merchantilism, calling it the "Third Way" between Capitalism and Communism, which, sadly, is like being a little bit pregnant. It's not actually a "Third Way" at all. It's all about control. |
| jdixon Oct 06, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
> "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" does not permit an individual to say "No." Or so they'd like to think. What actually happens is of course that those who can be more productive simply aren't. When everyone gets the same reward for their production, each person winds up producing the same amount as the least productive among them. You can't change human nature by passing a law. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 06, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
JD, did you ever read the diary of the first governor of Massachusetts? Fascinating reading. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1650bradford.html "At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. ... The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression." Personal profit has been badmouthed throughout history, but it turns out to be a _fantastic_ means of motivation. :^) |
| ColonelPanik Oct 07, 2007 5:34 AM EDT |
“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation" ~Albert Einstein “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 "The Internet isn't free. It just has an economy that makes no sense to capitalism.” ~ Brad Shapcott "Greed Sux" ~ColonelPanik |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 5:56 AM EDT |
> Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. Our educational system is not and (AFAIK) never has been based upon capitalism. > The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate There is no tyranny in freely chosen trade. > Greed Sux I suppose you turn down your tax return and donate additional money to the government every year then. Try reading Rand's "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" sometime. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 07, 2007 7:02 AM EDT |
jdixon, No thanks, Ms. Rand is a bit grim and rather strident for me. |
| gus3 Oct 07, 2007 8:29 AM EDT |
Ms. Rand also had no idea how having small children to feed and clothe and protect completely inverts one's sense of priorities. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
> Ms. Rand also had no idea how having small children to feed and clothe and protect completely inverts one's sense of priorities. Do you really think so? If so, then you're effectively denying that Ayn Rand was human. I doubt that's true. You're also equating personal decisions with government ones. The two are not the same thing. In any case, we're dangerously skirting the TOS again (I blame Bob, it's all his fault), so I should probably drop things. |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2007 8:36 AM EDT |
Personally I have found it impossible to choke down her writing style. No less than half a dozen times have I started Atlas Shrugged with the firm admonishment to myself "I'll read the whole thing this time". That lasts ~1 hour before I put it down again for another year or two. If I have to have a reading assignment please make it Bastiat. |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 8:39 AM EDT |
> No less than half a dozen times have I started Atlas Shrugged with the firm admonishment to myself "I'll read the whole thing this time. Try "We the Living" or "The Fountainhead" instead. They're easier to digest. If you can't stand them, there's no point in trying to get through "Atlas Shrugged". I'll freely admit that Rand isn't for everyone. |
| gus3 Oct 07, 2007 9:16 AM EDT |
Quoting:> Ms. Rand also had no idea how having small children to feed and clothe and protect completely inverts one's sense of priorities.Yes, I do think so. She had no place for those who are totally dependent on another, be they small children, or the infirmed, or shut-ins. She had no children, and had no serious illness until late in her life. Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society. http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefore_i_think/2002/10/a_cri... |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 07, 2007 9:40 AM EDT |
> Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. As JD points out, there is nothing capitalistic about the educational "system". From bottom to top it is government regulated, government controlled, or as with everything for the first 13 "grades", completely government _run_ with coerced attendance. It is for all intents and purposes, 13 years of forced labor in a prison. Einstein also fell into the trap of Merchantilism. > Ms. Rand is a bit grim and rather strident for me. No argument there! _Atlas Shrugged_ sat unread on my shelf as well, right next to _Shogun_, regardless of my interests in the subjects. They were just too... too... Too! As AZ suggests, Bastiat said everything Rand did, 100 years earlier, and with easier style. "Who Was Bastiat?" http://www.mises.org/story/2684 CP, I do have a question. Just what do you think is being done when coercion is used to do a "good" thing? You posted a quote concerning "the internet" being non-capitalistic. But the fact is that if you go back to 1992 and what happened before and after the National Science Foundation _released_control_ of the routing tables, you will see that the one and only reason you are able to access this site is Capitalism. The one and only reason LXer.com exists is Capitalism. Someone wanted to create it, they had the means, they chose to do it. No one told them to do it, no one prevented them from doing so. Maybe something a little bit more direct than Rand's fiction would suit you? Try this: A First Analysis of the Category of Action By Ludwig von Mises http://www.mises.org/story/2711 |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 9:52 AM EDT |
>Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society. The same could be said of many people -- including Mother Theresa. Your presumption that people are unable to empathize with the dilemmas of others may say more about you than it does about Ms. Rand. That said, I do not agree with her position on charity, but have trouble seeing how her position is fundamentally different from that of many liberals, which boils down to, I believe, "Let the government take care of the poor so I won't have to be bothered by them." |
| azerthoth Oct 07, 2007 10:09 AM EDT |
For those unfamiliar with Bastiat's writing, a not so short essay, but a very good read. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html |
| jdixon Oct 07, 2007 10:25 AM EDT |
> She had no children, and had no serious illness until late in her life. She herself was a child at one time. Are you presuming that she simply forgot what it's like? I don't have any children either. Does that remove my right to vote on national issues? > Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society. Suffice it to say that your understanding of Rand is incomplete. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 07, 2007 5:48 PM EDT |
> Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society. Which begs the question, what is meant by "true"? By "true", I would mean the charity which an individual chooses to perform of their own free will, giving of themselves gladly because their actions not only benefit others, but by being voluntary the individual giving is benefitting themselves. Good will, the promotion of a cause they believe in, or maybe just the good feeling of helping others. I don't know, but I do know that the more private wealth a country has, the greater the private, voluntary, charity that is donated. Your dislike of voluntary interaction leads me to think you have another judgement as to what is "true", and that you wish to enforce your view of "true" on others by force, for their own good of course. What a nice, kind, well meaning tyranny. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 8:09 PM EDT |
> Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society. On coming back to this thread, I realize that the statement itself is just plain wrong. Rand had no problem with the idea of charity. What she didn't believe in was an obligation, either legal or moral, to perform charity. That's a very different thing. That would be more in keeping with Bob's discussion of "true" charity - ie, done out of goodness rather than obligation. |
| gus3 Oct 07, 2007 8:15 PM EDT |
BR, I agree w/ your definition of "true" in this context: unforced, uncoerced, voluntary. When it's forced by law, it isn't charity, because there is no choice. Well, there is: do it or go to jail. I'm not sure where you get that I "dislike... voluntary interaction." I highly value unforced personal interaction. It's the stuff on which human relationships are built. dino, you and I get two totally opposite views on Rand's view of the poor. What I got from Atlas Shrugged was, "You have no right to enjoy the fruits of my labor without compensation." Or, more succinctly, "Get a job, ya bum!" jdixon, I was referring to how having dependents alters one's priorities. I found no evidence in AS that she understood it. When you have a small child, or a wife with cancer, you don't simply walk away from a job because you think, "I'm not being paid what I'm worth." You swallow your pride and do it (while you look for a better job), because there are others depending on you for food and medicine, not from any fault of their own, but just the way life goes sometimes. There was plenty of voluntary dependence in AS, of those who figured they could leech off others' hard work, and Rand was right (I believe, anyway) to cast that in a bad light. But involuntary dependence got no serious examination, and her own life gives clues why. |
| dinotrac Oct 07, 2007 8:37 PM EDT |
gus3 -
Atlas Shrugged was fiction. Better to simply ask her what her views were, which Playboy did: "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"] So, while she didn't much believe in it, she didn't have any real problem with it either. |
| gus3 Oct 07, 2007 11:18 PM EDT |
dino, I agree that AS was fiction, but it came with a lot of ham-fisted moralizing. FWIW, I love the quote you provide, especially the phrase "if and when they are worthy of the help..." That loaded phrase would mean so many different things to so many different people. And I'll get reprimanded for violating the TOS if I continue. |
| jacog Oct 07, 2007 11:23 PM EDT |
Ayn Rand was a nutcase. Disregard her every word. |
| gus3 Oct 07, 2007 11:32 PM EDT |
Ayn Rand saw first-hand what the removal of the profit motive did to people: it turned them into scheming, lying thieves. The world is a slightly better place for her having gotten out of the USSR alive. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 4:36 AM EDT |
> I love the quote you provide, especially the phrase "if and when they are worthy of the help..." That loaded phrase would mean so many different things to so many different people. I have never heard a more perfect reasoning for private, vs. public, charity. |
| ColonelPanik Oct 08, 2007 5:03 AM EDT |
> CP, I do have a question. Just what do you think is being done when coercion
is used to do a "good" thing? Bob_Robertson, Not sure what you mean Bob, give me an example please. I don't like that word coercion. If you don't think the education system isn't money driven just take a look at the text-book industry. And in more recent news, the flap over scholarly journals. Please reread the quote about the internet, It was supposed to be wry humor at best and a comment on how little the Old-School understands the present. I like people, really really like people. The human race as a whole is just a never ending source of joy to me. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not bless me with much thinking ability. But did I ever luck out in the heart dept. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 5:31 AM EDT |
> give me an example please. I don't like that word coercion. Hahahaha, neither do I. The quotes you provided talked about "capitalism" as if it were bad. Well, since "Capitalism" is what results when people are not coerced, it must mean that you see room for coercion to create a "good". If this is not correct, please forgive me. I have been well trained by a seemingly endless line of socialist Pavlovs to defend instantly. > If you don't think the education system isn't money driven... Ah! "money driven" has no bearing on whether or not Capitalism is involved. Merchaitilism is very much money driven, and the textbook industry is as perfect an example of merchantilist government favor seeking as I've ever seen. The NEA, like the AMA, is so powerful it might as well be a branch of government. John Stossel's "Stupid In America" is available through YouTube or Google Video, and goes into the power of the NEA to some extent. The "currency of renown" that fuels F/OSS development is no less capitalistic just because that currency _isn't_ money. > It was supposed to be wry humor at best... Sadly, humor often does not come through. My apologies for any misunderstanding. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2007 5:40 AM EDT |
>I have never heard a more perfect reasoning for private, vs. public, charity. The nice thing is that it allows for as many reasons for private charity as there are people to provide it. For example, a Christian should have no problem with "worthy of the help", because, to a Christian, all God's children are worthy of the help. At the same time, somebody else could adapt a more economics-oriented view that wasting resources on somebody who won't take advantage of the help means there won't be aid available for somebody else who will. So long as there is a diversity of givers, needs will be met and nobody's freedom offended. |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2007 6:32 AM EDT |
gus3: > When you have a small child, or a wife with cancer, you don't simply walk away from a job because you think, "I'm not being paid what I'm worth." You swallow your pride and do it (while you look for a better job), because there are others depending on you for food and medicine Well, having a wife with medical problems which prevent her from working, I can hardly disagree. However, I find it strange that you consider that an involuntary dependence. The phrase "for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health" comes to mind. Dino has already made the point that Rand had absolutely nothing against voluntary charity. And I must note that I personally disagree with Rand's position that charity is not a primary virtue. However, it order to be a virtue, it most be chosen. Forced charity cannot be virtuous. > For example, a Christian should have no problem with "worthy of the help", because, to a Christian, all God's children are worthy of the help. True, Dino. But the best help for some of them may not be charity. :) |
| gus3 Oct 08, 2007 8:36 AM EDT |
jdixon, >Well, having a wife with medical problems which prevent her from working, I can hardly disagree. However, I find it strange that you consider that an involuntary dependence. The phrase "for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health" comes to mind. Please pardon the bluntness, but her illness, and your association with each other, are simultaneous, but unrelated. Her illness is not chosen, nor the resulting dependence upon another. That you are the one on whom she depends is voluntary on both your parts. OTOH, if she had never met you N years ago, her dependence on another might still be there all the same. >Rand had absolutely nothing against voluntary charity. AS didn't have much for it, either. Anyone who got anything for free, was a rotter at best, criminal at worst. |
| Bob_Robertson Oct 08, 2007 8:43 AM EDT |
> Anyone who got anything for free, was a rotter at best, criminal at worst. Like...your posting to this web site? The fact that _she_ had charitable motivations different from yours merely demonstrates the benefits of leaving the whole realm of charity to private choice. |
| jdixon Oct 08, 2007 8:57 AM EDT |
> AS didn't have much for it, either. Well, first, it's unwise to generalize an author's position from a work of fiction, though that's less true of Atlas Shrugged than most. You're always going to get an incomplete view and often an incorrect one. Second, most of the charity described in Atlas Shrugged was not voluntary. > That you are the one on whom she depends is voluntary on both your parts. Which was my point. That dependence is strictly accounted for in the marriage vows. Anyone who isn't willing to assume it shouldn't plan on getting married. > OTOH, if she had never met you N years ago, her dependence on another might still be there all the same. Might, might not. That's something we can't know. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!