Paul Mason: The Latest Pied Piper of "the Death of Capitalism" • Gary North

a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you were correct, that would have happened.

Instead I have 5 Wal-Mart's within 5 miles of my current location.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
If 51 % of the people agreed with me, then yes it would be mine and the rest of the nation's right to stop Wal-Mart from paying their leaders wages that exploit the workforce.

If you took Walmart CEO Doug McMillon's salary and spread it out to every Walmart employee they would get and extra half a cent an hour raise.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I call that a game of semantics, and our founding fathers and the Washington Post seem to agree.

If you truly believe that, why did you abandon all talk of economics and, instead, play the game?

As I've already said that would be off topic.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Semicollegiate

If you were correct, that would have happened.

Instead I have 5 Wal-Mart's within 5 miles of my current location.

Wal-Mart is offering the lowest prices. That is not a monopoly.

specialization is needed cause there are too many sectors and detailed enterprises to comprehend.....then everyone in a sector is submerged in that....
so, it's a different world for everyone's occupational view....me, I'm a finance chart hacker for some Godly purpose.....I can't really figure why that's needed....what with the millennium right around the corner....I see things from God's viewpoint....huh!!

By the way, if capitalism continues the way it's going people will revolt. I don't see how anyone can seriously ignore the possibility of the end of capitalism, especially in light of the last recession which the world barely survived.

originally posted by: CB328
By the way, if capitalism continues the way it's going people will revolt. I don't see how anyone can seriously ignore the possibility of the end of capitalism, especially in light of the last recession which the world barely survived.

"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism."

-Frédéric Bastiat

One of curses of socialism is the extinction of diversity of products and production methods.

During WW1, all production was standardized. Many automobile manufacturer, electric light makers, home appliance producers, clothing stitchers were made to produce exactly what the government decreed for the war effort.

Basically the economy has been warped since the Progressive Era.

a reply to: CB328

Capitalism is not a system of government so there is nothing to revolt over. Supply and demand exists in every form of government and it is impacted by how regulated or unregulated that government is with its economic policies.

When you dramatically overstate that the 'world barely survived' what did we barely survive and what was the alternative outcome? A reversion to some sort of tribal primitivism?

Free market capitalism is the only true path to prosperity.

originally posted by: CB328
By the way, if capitalism continues the way it's going people will revolt. I don't see how anyone can seriously ignore the possibility of the end of capitalism, especially in light of the last recession which the world barely survived.

The end of capitalism would mean that every product to be made and service to be performed, from now to the end of all eternity, is already a known fact.

a reply to: greencmp

It never ceases to amaze me how people who cannot think straight

Meaning of course that the author does, think straight. Hell of a way to start a speech. Dismiss the 'other' guy as unable to think correctly. Is this not an authoritarian tactic? Is is not our basic position of elitism?

By this first sentence all but the choir are denounced. Why read farther. Sure, there may be valid points and arguments to come, and seeing as it was you who posted this thread (and I am still working on a reply in an other conversation we have begun) I became interested in what Mr North might say. But how can I now? From the opening sentence he displays merciless superiority.

By opening his statement in this manner it is clear that Mr Mason is not seeking to bridge the gap between those who 'think straight' and those who do not. He is bolstering the the egos of those who do, 'think straight". And as I am one who may possibly 'not be thinking straight' I do not want to hang around his words for further ridicule, regardless how much sense they seem to make to others.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's actually Gary North letting his innermost revulsion loose.

I can't deny that a little more honey might catch more flies but, considering the widespread demonization of all but the omnipotent state and its goons, a little anger and derision is understandable.

I should also point out that this was probably never really intended to be read by Mason's proponents as it is on his own website and appears elsewhere only on Lew Rockwell's site.

Look at Greece - One of the most socialized economies in Europe which is its problem. People get tired of having all their hard work plundered for redistribution, so they create a whole new economy. It's not legal. It's called "gray" or "black," but it exists, it's an exchange of goods and services and often very free. It is capitalism.

Michelle Obama and the FDA conspired to extremely tightly control what kids can and cannot eat at their school lunch, and kids created a capitalist market in packets of sugar, salt, and other seasonings.

You cannot kill it and it will not die.

Shouldn't it be "The Death of Crony Capitalism"? Note the difference.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Hi Isurrender,

I don't believe that Walmart's employees are underpaid.... that is the reason why there is effective competition in the marketplace.

It is not unfair for Walmart to make a profit on their investments and risk - it is unfair when they cheat people of fair practices.

Their practice of hiring Chinese workers to compete with American workers who have laws and protections put in place to protect their rights to not be unduly exploited - that makes your laws ineffective and legalizes inhumane treatment of workers for the sake of profit - as you become "globalized" workers. And the artificial holding of Chinese currency value as low, is designed to make sure that American workers can never get out of the trap of paying Chinese workers lower wages - no matter how hard you try.

In the meanwhile the government that instituted these abusive trade relations to hide their complacency in padding the pockets of their corporate friends, and in fact their guilt in facilitating it - they take no pay reductions and aren't aware that the Chinese Government is effective government for a lot less money - you are stuck paying for the high wages of your own government.

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Now, these irresponsible governments go about citing their numerous achievements, for which we are to pat them on the back, even though they support behaviours behind everyone's backs that are fatal to the people they serve and "on purpose" - the fat cat syndrome is plainly obvious and you haven't stopped looking for work and ways to make yourselves of use to your country.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: CB328

Capitalism is not a system of government so there is nothing to revolt over. Supply and demand exists in every form of government and it is impacted by how regulated or unregulated that government is with its economic policies.

When you dramatically overstate that the 'world barely survived' what did we barely survive and what was the alternative outcome? A reversion to some sort of tribal primitivism?

Free market capitalism is the only true path to prosperity.

Well said. Even in the Soviet Union, capitalism existed--people would grow their own vegetables in the back yard and then illegally sell them on the black market because socialism is horribly inefficient to get goods to market. Free market capitalism is more a law of nature than a governmental entity. Even where it is banned, it exists in the black market.

a reply to: IanFleming

Capitalism is a "system".

The "system" doesn't make itself - it is made by people.

It is the people who make the "system", that deliberately choose flawed reasoning - the evidence is coming in - and the demise of *ANY* long standing system is inevitable as inequalities set in - if the source of power doesn't have enough options for change.

Additionally, the "system" has been designed to deliberately keep people ignorant of the unfairness that has crept in - a symptom of a society that is not taught how it's system is supposed to effect changes in favour of "the people", and people forcibly partaking in (actually by their own will) the administration of their own "country" and brought to understand the numerous complexities and pitfalls put in place.

Really, a system based on "trust" doesn't need to be so comprehensively documented - it is argued that the leaders would do bad things if they didn't lock things down - the leaders HAVE to understand how to effect change for you - or they would be useless and unecessary - but, if they can't be trusted - well the job will forcefully fall on the people's heads - a force that should have been mandatorily included in the education system - so that we wouldn't have misunderstandings of what it is they do.

Yet, the evidence is in - they have been cheating - the obvious disparities between rich and poor and injustices done to the poor, with the excuse that the "poor" somehow earned their position 100% of the time - yet birth in to a rich family implies an automatically passed on inheritance - they have the right to the wealth by birth - and the enormous inequalities by birth.

Caste system anyone? Worship money (sarcasm).

a reply to: IanFleming

And as Mises pointed out, the Soviet Union itself participated in the larger capitalist world economy. It just did so as an inefficient singular monopolistic entity to its great detriment.

Give the caste system a couple of decades.....

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
a reply to: IanFleming

Capitalism is a "system".

The "system" doesn't make itself - it is made by people.

It is the people who make the "system", that deliberately choose flawed reasoning - the evidence is coming in - and the demise of *ANY* long standing system is inevitable as inequalities set in - if the source of power doesn't have enough options for change.

Additionally, the "system" has been designed to deliberately keep people ignorant of the unfairness that has crept in - a symptom of a society that is not taught how it's system is supposed to effect changes in favour of "the people", and people forcibly partaking in (actually by their own will) the administration of their own "country" and brought to understand the numerous complexities and pitfalls put in place.

Really, a system based on "trust" doesn't need to be so comprehensively documented - it is argued that the leaders would do bad things if they didn't lock things down - the leaders HAVE to understand how to effect change for you - or they would be useless and unecessary - but, if they can't be trusted - well the job will forcefully fall on the people's heads - a force that should have been mandatorily included in the education system - so that we wouldn't have misunderstandings of what it is they do.

Yet, the evidence is in - they have been cheating - the obvious disparities between rich and poor and injustices done to the poor, with the excuse that the "poor" somehow earned their position 100% of the time - yet birth in to a rich family implies an automatically passed on inheritance - they have the right to the wealth by birth - and the enormous inequalities by birth.

Caste system anyone? Worship money (sarcasm).

There is ordinarily a grain of truth in most opinions and this is no exception.

What you are unhappy with is the ability to give your belongings to your children. So, that means that if your daddy doesn't have much but, your neighbor's father does, he gets an endowment and you don't.

You believe that is an affront to your human "dignity". You wish to intervene in that transaction and extract your own proportion of value from it.

Now, there are people who simply hate money and advertising and the unpleasant things people choose to do to attract attention. I understand them, they are not interested in burglary, they have an aesthetic vision for society that I don't agree with but, is self-consistently authoritarian without fully realizing it.

On the other hand, you sound like you would be very happy to deploy your ill-gotten gains in whatsoever fashion strikes you. You don't hate money, you envy those who "have" it.

Ink+Paper=Woohoo!

It doesn't work like that.

Currency (money) is a fungible representation of value. If the supply of it becomes distorted, the confidence in it can be at risk.

Fiat money is subject to political changes where gold is not though, gold prices do fluctuate in response to political changes, gold never goes belly up.