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

The legal system can lock in historically acquired wealth and behaviours, and potentially even unfairly gained wealth too.

The legal system can be biased in favour of anyone - and occasionally is deliberately biased in order to create an opportunity for a service that doesn't previously exist - take for instance the paving of the roads.

But, once a pattern has been set for this, then, the law having been put in place to protect such historically acquired territory no longer provides the means for competitive distribution of the wealth or opportunity.... over time, this leads to the demise of every system, as it becomes locked and incapable of changing to allow those who have "better" ways, in favour of those who have traditionally been favoured.

Even the use of rubberized tar roads, is a classical example of how unjustifiable practices have locked themselves in - such roads are not permitted by cities to be created, because of the loss of rituallistically traditional use of the old way to support higher costs to the tax payer.

This is only one case in point. Microsoft is another example of a monopoly that was created in the case of Intel's chipsets, where they charged a fee for every Intel Microprocessor sold, whether a Microsoft product was sold with the chipset or not, strangling many a struggling operating system manufacturer, and now those companies that lost the opportunity and their investments are not to be compensated in spite of the permanent loss.

Legally, these protected territories and their lists increase, and so such injustices amplify over time and eventually cause the system to become an old guards' patting each other on the back system that no one can break into and this is permanently deemed "fair".

At any given point in time the patent system is also a historically protected territory, locking in potential practices that then inhibit competitive improvement.

But, if a new revolution were to occur, then the most recently evolved government is free to redistribute patent rights.

Take what happened in Tiannammen square and re-apply it over, and over, and over, and each time - time, position and power being the justified components of said historically acquired wealth protection.

But, this according to you is "fair". Might is right. Dog eat dog.

a reply to: Isurrender73

If no one had extraordinary wealth it would be impossible to buy government officials.

And if there were no government officials, no one would need to buy them! See how that works?

Allowing people to become insanely rich will always lead to massive income disparity and the destruction of competition.

Income disparity is a faux problem. Does it matter how much your neighbor makes? No, it does not. As for destruction of competition, that's completely false and history is replete with giants who have fallen.

I can't compete with Wal-Mart, but I should be able to try

Without the massive government regulations you would be able to beat wal-mart. Newsflash: walmart is not the cheapest place on the planet for many goods.

If I open a business down the street from Wal-Mart they simply lower their prices to a level that puts me out of business.

No one said it would be easy to beat walmart. What you're saying is that we should kneecap walmart because they're the best at what they do. I guess we ought to knee cap lebron james too because I can't beat him at basketball.

Without a wealth cap, this will always happen.

What you're thinking of is barriers to entry and without a government who loves to create them for the highest bidder, this would not happen. The government and their regulation empire is the real problem. They need to have their power severely lessened, to a more constitutional level.

originally posted by: Dfairlite


And if there were no government officials, no one would need to buy them! See how that works?

So who needs who ? It's the corporations that want strong governments to uphold the economic paradigm that made the corporations powerful. The corrupting force lies within the corporations, corrupting governments is just another tool in their Swiss knife. If there was no government, corporations would invent it.

a reply to: greencmp
Wow, who or what rattled your cage. I see a lot of this recently. In the UK this almost paranoid panic about the left has commentators and prominent leaders of parties on the right droning on and on. Even Tony Blair has a side swipe at the left wing Labour leader candidate.

Truth is, wherever someone of left leaning attitudes speaks up they get masses of support. Apathetic voters are suddenly engaged.

Irrespective of whether the politics of the left will work or not one thing is certain, the politics of the right that we have lived under since WWII is proving highly unpalatable. Change is coming, tough, capitalism failed to ensure a stable economy. Growth under capitalism only ever results in a highly distorted and unequal society, it's the inevitable consequence of the driving mechanism behind free markets. Some of you just can't see it though.

Money is your God.

The means justifies the end.

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
The legal system can lock in historically acquired wealth and behaviours, and potentially even unfairly gained wealth too.

The legal system can be biased in favour of anyone - and occasionally is deliberately biased in order to create an opportunity for a service that doesn't previously exist - take for instance the paving of the roads.

But, once a pattern has been set for this, then, the law having been put in place to protect such historically acquired territory no longer provides the means for competitive distribution of the wealth or opportunity.... over time, this leads to the demise of every system, as it becomes locked and incapable of changing to allow those who have "better" ways, in favour of those who have traditionally been favoured.

Even the use of rubberized tar roads, is a classical example of how unjustifiable practices have locked themselves in - such roads are not permitted by cities to be created, because of the loss of rituallistically traditional use of the old way to support higher costs to the tax payer.

This is only one case in point. Microsoft is another example of a monopoly that was created in the case of Intel's chipsets, where they charged a fee for every Intel Microprocessor sold, whether a Microsoft product was sold with the chipset or not, strangling many a struggling operating system manufacturer, and now those companies that lost the opportunity and their investments are not to be compensated in spite of the permanent loss.

Legally, these protected territories and their lists increase, and so such injustices amplify over time and eventually cause the system to become an old guards' patting each other on the back system that no one can break into and this is permanently deemed "fair".

There was a legitimate complaint against inherited power not inherited property.

In support of your observations, I would have to say by looking at our recent history that there are some blatant examples of monarchesque trends in our candidate selection and thus, our elected officials, I consider it a byproduct of laziness rather than inherited power.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
a reply to: greencmp
Wow, who or what rattled your cage. I see a lot of this recently. In the UK this almost paranoid panic about the left has commentators and prominent leaders of parties on the right droning on and on. Even Tony Blair has a side swipe at the left wing Labour leader candidate.

Truth is, wherever someone of left leaning attitudes speaks up they get masses of support. Apathetic voters are suddenly engaged.

Irrespective of whether the politics of the left will work or not one thing is certain, the politics of the right that we have lived under since WWII is proving highly unpalatable. Change is coming, tough, capitalism failed to ensure a stable economy. Growth under capitalism only ever results in a highly distorted and unequal society, it's the inevitable consequence of the driving mechanism behind free markets. Some of you just can't see it though.

Yours is the prevailing opinion it would seem.

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
At any given point in time the patent system is also a historically protected territory, locking in potential practices that then inhibit competitive improvement.

But, if a new revolution were to occur, then the most recently evolved government is free to redistribute patent rights.

Take what happened in Tiannammen square and re-apply it over, and over, and over, and each time - time, position and power being the justified components of said historically acquired wealth protection.

But, this according to you is "fair". Might is right. Dog eat dog.

As it happens, because I don't have confidence in official power or its representatives, I have problems with the state administering patents and copyrights.

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
Money is your God.

The means justifies the end.

Well, that right there is the manifest antithesis of my ethic.

a reply to: greencmp

Who hired the lazy guy??? You? Me???

Why? If you and I know that is true - Why Man??? Why do we have to be so stupid???? ON broken record inc.

The politicians talk and talk and talk and we're at a total loss when they walk the walk.

Dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog. Ooops, substitute "GOD".

Show me proof that Hollywood can't manipulate???

Anything?

So, the master illusionist becomes your next leader.

They say what you want to hear - visions retailed to you. And when they get in power TADAa! Your money disappeared!

We give them the power to lead, by not fighting for it for ourselves - and in a massive illusionist society? (quite like the bible says, BTW) Who are you going to trust? Beyonce?

Where is their ignominious claim to intelligence?

originally posted by: sensibleSenseless
a reply to: greencmp

Who hired the lazy guy??? You? Me???

Why? If you and I know that is true - Why Man??? Why do we have to be so stupid???? ON broken record inc.

I have to say, I have only been actually exploring the whole political landscape in the last decade. I had no interest in what was clearly nonsense.

It can be daunting and holds little interest for most.

Then I figured, why not?, few people actually attempt to show the profound benefits that we have as a direct result of private property and free markets not socialism.

This is probably what pissed Gary North off so much that he sounds uncharacteristically insulting.

911 anyone? Any takers? Did you vote for that? Globalized economy - another small insignificant country pumels the US economy - so much for the nukes....

911: That was the free-Masons, or the BuilderBergers, or the Rothschilds, or the military industrial complex, or, or... bankrolling you. How do you know it wasn't???

You know it was! The evidence fits the crime. The increasing disparity between you and the wealthy and you are aparently to blame for selecting these people.

You have nuclear weapons, and if any country wanted to bring your military industrial complex down, they only have to finance the poor people of Afghanistan, and you will be decimated with your "human" rights considerations and the political will to pocket your money.

a reply to: sensibleSenseless

None of you are allowed to touch the military spending budget - it's classified - the means to take your money in secret.

a reply to: greencmp

Socialism is a failure, eh?

(Bloomberg) -- Anbang Insurance Group Co., which bought New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel, will increase the capital of Dutch insurer Vivat by as much as 1 billion euros ($1.14 billion) after agreeing to buy the company.

Anbang, based in Beijing, won Dutch government approval to purchase and recapitalize Vivat, the former insurance arm of seized bank SNS Reaal NV, Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem said on Monday. It will buy the firm for 150 million euros and also repay 552 million euros that Vivat borrowed from SNS, he said in a statement to parliament.

Anbang, which won regulatory approval this month to acquire the Waldorf from Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. for $1.95 billion, says it has transactions pending in Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa.

Vivat has more than 6 million insurance policies earning gross proceeds of 3 billion euros, according to Dijsselbloem. It employs 4,000 people.

Anbang bought Belgian insurer Fidea NV in October and agreed to purchase the Belgian banking operations of Delta Lloyd NV in December. The company has agreed to buy a majority stake in Tong Yang Life Insurance Co., Korea Economic Daily reported today. It is planning an initial public offering that could raise about $2 billion, people familiar with the matter said in November.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I don't get it.

Are you saying that socialism is great because an insurance company bought a hotel?