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

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is a best system, and it is to be found not by dictating how people should act ( socialism ), but by allowing people to act naturally and then taking advantage of whatever phenomena occur ( the free market ).

The free market is an utopian concept - it does not exist. Even in America the State dictates how people should act, regulates the market, forces taxes on consumer goods and forbids some goods to be sold or bought.

Also, if people are allowed to act naturally, they tend to help each other, share. We are social beings - hence socialism is far more natural than to turn everything into a market, free or not.

If you take care of your children, do you send them a bill? If you help your father in his garden, do you send him a bill? If a friend offers to cook you a meal, do you offer him money - or do you eat, drink and simply thank him and return the favour one day?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is a best system, and it is to be found not by dictating how people should act ( socialism ), but by allowing people to act naturally and then taking advantage of whatever phenomena occur ( the free market ).

The free market is an utopian concept - it does not exist. Even in America the State dictates how people should act, regulates the market, forces taxes on consumer goods and forbids some goods to be sold or bought.

Also, if people are allowed to act naturally, they tend to help each other, share. We are social beings - hence socialism is far more natural than to turn everything into a market, free or not.

If you take care of your children, do you send them a bill? If you help your father in his garden, do you send him a bill? If a friend offers to cook you a meal, do you offer him money - or do you eat, drink and simply thank him and return the favour one day?

The argument against utopianism is that utopianism cannot be a real solution due to inherent flaws in its operation.

The free market can be a solution, the fact that it doesn't exist does not make it utopian.

People are rational. Saying that people act naturally includes all kinds of self control that goes with planning. Socialism always takes credit for things that happen naturally, things which coincidentally are socialism's only "successes".

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The free market can be a solution

Do it.

Until you do, it's all just talk.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is a best system, and it is to be found not by dictating how people should act ( socialism ), but by allowing people to act naturally and then taking advantage of whatever phenomena occur ( the free market ).

The free market is an utopian concept - it does not exist. Even in America the State dictates how people should act, regulates the market, forces taxes on consumer goods and forbids some goods to be sold or bought.

Also, if people are allowed to act naturally, they tend to help each other, share. We are social beings - hence socialism is far more natural than to turn everything into a market, free or not.

If you take care of your children, do you send them a bill? If you help your father in his garden, do you send him a bill? If a friend offers to cook you a meal, do you offer him money - or do you eat, drink and simply thank him and return the favour one day?

In all fairness, pure socialism is even more a utopian concept.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The free market can be a solution

Do it.

Until you do, it's all just talk.

Who is John Galt?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

A fictional character.

I doubt he is going to make free markets work.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A fictional character.

I doubt he is going to make free markets work.

You make free markets work by doing what you do best for trade. You can't help it, it just happens.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

A fictional character.

I doubt he is going to make free markets work.

It really depends on what you consider "working".

From my perspective, it is the specialization the free market affords which advances technology and techniques at rates which exceed our ability to expand. It is the reason that poverty worldwide has been so drastically reduced.

Without it, the doomsayers could very well be right. More people with no better or more efficient methods will be in a pickle.

If what you mean when you say "working" is that everybody is guaranteed a comfy gig and skittles, not so much.

I guess it just doesn't work.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You make free markets work by doing what you do best for trade. You can't help it, it just happens.

You just said that they don't even exist. Seems to me that they don't even happen, help or no help.

originally posted by: greencmp
It really depends on what you consider "working".

"Works as advertised" would be a good start.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Monopoly (the game) is a fantastically foreign representation of what equitable trade is. It really couldn't be further from how people actually behave and migrate or how resources are in fact utilized.

On the first point, that prices are only possible with private property, without the assignment of value as dictated by demand, no allocations can be made

Not true at all. It doesn't matter if the firm is privately owned or owned by the workers themselves. This the heart of socialism. Production run by workers. Singular owners or majority shareholders aren't necessary.

Is this an uncomfortable fact? Yes, so you'll deny it till your face turns blue. An example:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Production is always run by workers, because workers are consumers, and consumers determine which businesses will be profitable

What a silly statement. Production is run by workers when they own the company. Point blank. There's no debating this. We're talking about the relations at the point of production. Not supply/demand.

Point 6. Decentralization.. Capitalism isn't headed towards decentralization. The opposite is true. Massive corporations are making record profits. Wealth/capital itself is being accumulated into a small
minorities hands at previously unseen levels. The data is easy to find. Included in this data is the fact American workers are working longer hours for less pay. Living in about $15,000 debt on average.

That's not decentralization. Production is not becoming decentralized. The tech boom gave all the "free market" people the idea that the entrepreneurial spirit came back but the massive tech firms are running the show. That bubble burst long ago. In the meantime large tech companies have been colluding to put downward pressure on wages. This has impacted a million + people in the tech industry. Many of the largest companies have not only illegally colluded to place downward pressure on wages but they've formed lobby groups to demand more foreign workers visas. They're doing everything within their power to place downward pressure on wages. To make sure the profits aren't decentralized. To undercut smaller competitors. These firms are basically the new robber barons.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is a best system, and it is to be found not by dictating how people should act ( socialism ), but by allowing people to act naturally and then taking advantage of whatever phenomena occur ( the free market ).

The free market is an utopian concept - it does not exist. Even in America the State dictates how people should act, regulates the market, forces taxes on consumer goods and forbids some goods to be sold or bought.

Also, if people are allowed to act naturally, they tend to help each other, share. We are social beings - hence socialism is far more natural than to turn everything into a market, free or not.

If you take care of your children, do you send them a bill? If you help your father in his garden, do you send him a bill? If a friend offers to cook you a meal, do you offer him money - or do you eat, drink and simply thank him and return the favour one day?

That's the thing with "free market" advocates. They want EVERYTHING to be a commodity. Every last need, want or desire to be privatized with profit attached. Just read Mises or Rothbard. They were crazy. Rothbard even advocated selling children.

originally posted by: IanFlemingIn all fairness, pure socialism is even more a utopian concept.

Agreed. Heck, I'm an anarchist..

originally posted by: SemicollegiateThe argument against utopianism is that utopianism cannot be a real solution due to inherent flaws in its operation.

Actually, most "utopian" concepts are quite sane. But they require something that is difficult to achieve: unity. If all people believe a certain model works - they do all they can to MAKE it work and all then will say it works.

I am Dutch - the Dutch do things that are quite astounding: they ride bicycles. From a logical point of view this is beserk: it's a kind of circus act. After a mostly painful period of being taught the trick young children are sent away to school sitting atop a construction that baffles the mind - zigzagging their way through a life threatening environment of solid steel cars, trees, ditches and other bicycles. And all this in a climate that hardly invites anybody to do so! This environmental situation often allows the baffled bystander to see an even more impossible sight: Dutch children driving by in tigh cohorts - holding an umbrella in one hand, steering the bicycle with another while routinely talking to their peers.

Nobody in his sound mind would have dreamt up this bicycle based Utopia. It is quite illogical, and quite insane. But It works because the Dutch all believe that it works - and even though there are much more safe and comfortable ways to get from a to b, there are more bicycles in The Netherlands than there are Dutchmen and our nation is indeed a bicycle utopia.

So, in my opinion, Utopia CAN exist, even if there are inherent flaws in its operation.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: JeanPaul

Monopoly (the game) is a fantastically foreign representation of what equitable trade is. It really couldn't be further from how people actually behave and migrate or how resources are in fact utilized.

On the first point, that prices are only possible with private property, without the assignment of value as dictated by demand, no allocations can be made

Not true at all. It doesn't matter if the firm is privately owned or owned by the workers themselves. This the heart of socialism. Production run by workers. Singular owners or majority shareholders aren't necessary.

Is this an uncomfortable fact? Yes, so you'll deny it till your face turns blue. An example:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Production is always run by workers, because workers are consumers, and consumers determine which businesses will be profitable

What a silly statement. Production is run by workers when they own the company. Point blank. There's no debating this. We're talking about the relations at the point of production. Not supply/demand.

The consumers decide what they will pay for what quantity. That sets the parameters for production, in effect limiting the choices of a business to the single best way to produce.

The consumers decide how a company will be run by how much money they choose to spend on its output.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You make free markets work by doing what you do best for trade. You can't help it, it just happens.

You just said that they don't even exist. Seems to me that they don't even happen, help or no help.

Actually I didn't say it, I wrote it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Either way, they are still not happening.

Please define "way", and the antecedent of "they".

originally posted by: JeanPaul
Point 6. Decentralization.. Capitalism isn't headed towards decentralization. The opposite is true. Massive corporations are making record profits. Wealth/capital itself is being accumulated into a small
minorities hands at previously unseen levels.

The concentration of wealth is not the result of capitalism solely or directly. The concentration of wealth is due to the socialistic financial and regulatory environment that can be exploited by the rich more readily than by the small business.

Decentralization has occurred regularly before.

Standard Oil missed out on the Texas Oil boom, and the retail selling of gasoline for motor cars.

Ford lost its market to General Motors because Ford would not make cosmetic and accessorial changes to its cars.

IBM completely missed the home computer market.