Nonsensible Shoes: capitalism

Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts

January 4, 2025

It's a Wonderful Life

Every Christmas season I watch It's a Wonderful Life. It's a heartwarming story with a moral lesson that I have never really related to capitalism vs. communism per se. It is about a more spiritual point. Nevertheless, capitalism and altruism are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, as is explained quite well in this video I stumbled across this week, communism and altruism do not mesh as well as is possible in a capitalist system.

February 20, 2024

How Freedom Dies: Orwellian dystopia

This is not without an abundance of truth, despite Orwell's disdain for capitalism and admiration for collectivism and socialism.

January 2, 2024

May 11, 2023

Crony capitalism is bad capitalism

If your socialist worldview about capitalism is bad, it might be because the capitalism you have been exposed to has been crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is bad capitalism. In fact it's not really capitalism at all. It is bad though, fascist level bad. Here's why (while this does go off on some tangential lines, it covers a lot of good points that all deserve deeper dives):

May 8, 2023

Bill Whittle explains capitalism

Capitalism for beginners (like Gen Z) courtesy of Bill Whittle:

January 27, 2023

The pitfalls of capitalism

I am an avowed believer in and supporter of capitalism. I wholeheartedly support the concept of the free market. My initial foray into the political sphere, as a young teenager mind you, was from that trajectory. I was first a fiscal conservative before discovering my social conservatism a decade later. The benefits of capitalism over socialism, communism, fascism, monarchies, dictatorships or any other form of governance are spectacular and incontrovertible. Capitalism supports the Biblical principle of the work ethic. Capitalism supports the notion of individual liberty as well as individual responsibility. Capitalism supports the idea of a meritocracy. The other forms of government do not. In many regards they even reject or overtly oppose much of those ideas.

The pitfalls of capitalism I am about to discuss are not meant as an indictment of it, rather a warning that we cannot allow it's few but obvious weaknesses to derail it from succeeding. To appropriate some William Shakespeare's Mark Anthony, I come to praise capitalism, not to bury it. Nevertheless, I come to gird capitalism by pointing out where it has failed. Or rather, more aptly, those who profess to practice it, have failed.

Let me preface the below by saying that while I am talking about capitalism, which is an economic system, it is inherently entwined with democracy. You cannot have a free market without a free people. Other economic systems are more often than not a political and economic model combined. My commentary below reflects this mix of the economic side of freedom (capitalism) with the political side of freedom (democracy, a representative republic or similar means of governance). My critiques of capitalism stem primarily from the shortcomings of governance rather than capitalism itself.

Capitalism has never existed in an unfettered state. If it were so it would be seen to be more brutal than how we observe it. If indeed we existed in a truly laissez faire capitalist society, taxation would be for the creation of roads, the common defense and provide laws that protect commerce and individuals from unjustness (theft, fraud, murder for example). But capitalism is managed by humans, and where it is practiced, it does more.

There is a social safety net to help the most unfortunate and weakest among us in every capitalist nation. When done properly this is a boon to individuals as well as to the system. When done improperly it can result in bloat (too many recipients, including those not truly in need), or shortfall (not supportive enough or corruption leaching funds from those in need by government bureaucrats). It should be pointed out that these are not pitfalls of capitalism, they are the pitfalls of improperly executed capitalism, or warping of it by those who seek to gain from unwarranted opportunity.

But there are pitfalls nonetheless. Perhaps the most egregious of these is the advent of a kleptocracy by both government and the techo-industrial elite.

In a kleptocracy, corrupt politicians enrich themselves secretly outside the rule of law, through kickbacks, bribes, and special favors from lobbyists and corporations, or they simply direct state funds to themselves and their associates.

This is not a the flaw of capitalism, this is a distortion of capitalism. Capitalism's flaw, is to lend itself to such distortion. A free market system, with insufficient guard rails put in place can easily be corrupted by those with the money and power to do so. Therein lies capitalism's greatest weakness; the inability to sufficiently protect itself from deliberate disruption by the lazy-greedy. This extends to deliberate disruption by the unwise. Government in seeking to prevent disruption of the economy often inadvertently distorts the economy it creates bubbles. The proper way to handle a recession is to endure it, not print money and artificially avoid it until the next election cycle. This creates bubbles, and it creates incentive to expand the bubble and avoid the pain. This makes the inevitable bubble-burst far worse. Capitalism does not provide a way to prevent that.

The solution, good government, is not mandated by capitalism. The smarter way to prepare for inevitable occasional economic weakness is to provide a sufficient safety net in those times and even more critically, provide the incentive and enable the populace the opportunity to prepare for it themselves. Does anyone save for a rainy day anymore? Why bother when the government does not set the example and instead is willing to throw trillions of dollars they don't really have at the problem? This is what is often referred to as generational theft. The government borrows money that following generations will have to pay back. Lazy-greedy in a different way.

In defense of capitalism, no other form of government protects from this any better. In fact they all serve a concentration of power that enables fewer and fewer to decide more and more and ultimately that power not only serves their corruption and enables it, it encourages it. The imperfection of capitalism in this regard is far worse in other forms of system but capitalism is nonetheless not excused.

Capitalism requires a higher bar of protection against these weaknesses. Not just legal protections are needed, as those can be rewritten or avoided through loopholes government has proven itself all-too-willing to use. It requires a belief, strongly-held among the people, that government is a servant of the people and must be held to account for every action and decision. This is a lot to ask of a population in terms of time and effort and even awareness. The problem is that the awareness has been deliberately eroded over generations and even good intentions fail when awareness prevents their use.

Coupled with the lazy-greedy issue, is the developed sense of entitlement. Modern Caligulas across government and the wealthy elite and even the famous, feel entitled to their wealth and do not concern themselves that it comes at the expense of the middle class and poorer classes. They are entitled after all. They have lived it and been told it all their lives. They Marie Antoinette their way through life unconcerned that the price of eggs has dramatically increased and life has become significantly more straining on everyone else.

This oligopoly of wealth and power make decisions on governance outside of the purview of everyday citizens but in a way that affects everyday citizens (most often negatively). Think COVID mask mandates "for thee but not for me" as one example. Think Jeffery Epstein's private island for a more direct and dramatic use of people as objects for another example. All the while they tell you what you observe isn't real. Inflation isn't bad, it's just you.

This concentration of power and wealth builds upon itself. Those inside the inner circle grow bigger and bigger feeding of the rest of society, and make rules to ensure competition to their aristocracy is fettered and hobbled and can never truly get to the top. Again this is not capitalism, it is a distortion of capitalism. But capitalism here is not snow-white and sin free.

Capitalism's inherent risk here, comes from it's strength. one of the underpinning concepts of capitalism is competition. If there is a need going unfilled, capitalism rewards those who seek to fill that need by providing them with a growth in their wealth. But competition inevitably means there will be more than one person or business entity that tries to fill that need with a solution. Not all will do equally well and the best (based quality, price and other factors) will slowly grow market share at the expense of the less ideal solutions. In a truly free market there is a potential that the one best idea ends up becoming the only idea, obtaining 100% market share (or perhaps 90% say). The competition has destroyed itself. Capitalism has led to a market monopoly. Perhaps this is inevitable in efficient capitalism. But the strength of the best winning out, doing the best for consumers in the end, sews the seeds for its own demise. Monopolies are not healthy in capitalism. Maybe in the short term they are fine, but extended monopolies become like government. They seek to exist for their own existence. They serve themselves and only themselves. People be damned. This is a further recipe for corruption and perhaps collusion with government; you protect my market from other players and I donate to your election campaign. It doesn't matter if a newer and better option has been devised, it must be destroyed before it can grow and replace my monopoly.

It's a sick twisting of capitalism but capitalism itself has done nothing to prevent this twisting from occurring. Or rather we have not done anything to prevent capitalism from being perverted. Again, laws exist to prevent these distortions but they happen anyway, because people are corrupt. Not just the elite, people in general look out for their own interests. It's human nature, or in fact, just nature. What capitalism requires is an institutional way of preventing the corruption. It requires it at a foundational level and it does not have it. More important than laws are two things; awareness and transparency.

Those unfortunately require complete openness about financial transactions at those levels (and in the interest of fairness the, at every level), and media coverage of anything that has been flagged as suspicious transactions. Yikes. While we are probably at a point where that may be technically possible, there are three things that are wrong with that solution.

The obvious one we rail over already as conservatives; the media is large enough and corrupt enough to become part of the problem already. They will have no interest in exposing the problems.
There is no appetite to create a financially fully open society; not at the top level, not at any level. Do you want everyone having the option to know or see everywhere you spend your money? Probably not. Very probably not.
This does not cover every possible transaction because not all transactions are financial. "Write a negative story about x, and I will make sure you have free access to y." That will still go undetected.

Capitalism also demands equality of opportunity (NOT outcome - I will never play basketball well enough to deserve an NBA level salary at the job. I do not have the physical traits such as height, to compete at that level). Democracy as it has existed so far, does not ensure this is the case. This requires equality of education, equality of access to opportunities, and a removal of unjust barriers to entry.

All is not lost for capitalism. These problems also exist in every other form of government in some form or another, despite what utopian socialists or communist would have you believe. The strength of capitalism is invention and reinvention. If those who believe in capitalism can come to grips with it's pitfalls, they can work more diligently to expunge them. That can not be said to be true of most other systems of governance. Capitalism is redeemable but it requires constant vigilance and it does not have that, which is our own fault.

August 25, 2021

OnlyFans is not like Big Brother apparently

I've never been on OnlyFans, but I've read that there is a lot of explicit (adult) content there. They recently had announced an intention to ban all of that sort of content from their platform. I get it, they may not have intended to be that sort of a platform (and obviously not all content on OnlyFans is adult type content). It's their prerogative to make that sort of policy change. But then something interesting happened that made me sort of become a fan of OnlyFans, despite never having been on their platform even once. They listened to their users (both producers and consumers):

The content subscription service announced plans last week to block sexually explicit photos and videos from October.
On Wednesday, it tweeted that it has "suspended the planned 1 October policy change".
It is currently unclear if the delay will be permanent.
OnlyFans wrote on twitter that it would "continue to provide a home for all creators".
"Thank you to everyone for making your voices heard," said the company.
"We have secured assurances necessary to support our diverse creator community and have suspended the planned 1 October policy change.
"OnlyFans stands for inclusion and we will continue to provide a home for all creators."

OnlyFans might be a much newer platform and unwilling to take the hit of a producer/consumer revolt. So this could end up being a temporary change of heart. They could end up being as heavy handed and autocratic as Twitter or Facebook. But for now they are not, and that is a win.

Why am I suddenly a fan? They just did something other platforms have refused to do, serve the community. The heard the backlash and changed their minds. That is called being responsive to the marketplace. It's how capitalism is supposed to work. This flies in the face of other decisions by the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Patreon, YouTube, Pinterest and Tumblr. It's refreshing. So much so that I plan on checking the platform out to see if there is anything of interest. Not because of the adult content, but I will be checking it out as a result of their willingness to allow creators and users to produce and consume the content they prefer to produce and consume. Hopefully there ends up being some political content or something worth keeping my attention because I'd like to be able to reward OnlyFans for their responsiveness.

August 2, 2021

Religious egocentrism vs. the futility of atheism; a philosophical rant

If I were an atheist, I would most certainly also be a hedonist. It seems to be the only logical option. If you take the sum of all human activity; our greatest accomplishments, our innovations, our greatest foibles and blunders, all of our art, music, philosophy, literature and theater, our wars, our famine, our conquests and defeats, love and death - all of it is meaningless. We are infinitesimally small in the universe, which itself seems eventually destined for death. We cannot change either of those precepts of existence. Nothing we do matters; we are a pointless speck of no consequence.

In that regard, everything we do, say or think has no real matter, no grand consequence or significance. In that light, why not toss aside virtue? And value? What point is there to doing anything other than pleasing oneself as much as possible as often as possible? Obey laws? Only insofar as they keep you out of prison.

Atheists can be virtuous people but those who are, are likely as rare as they are misguided in their atheism. Once you have thought through the nature of existence you have three choices as an atheist:

(i) nihilism (which taken to its logical conclusion does not end well)

(ii) hedonism (which is pointless but at least potentially enjoyable) or

(iii) unavailingly continuing to strive to improve the world.

But to what purpose the latter option? Atheists who want to do good for mankind, at the expense of their own hedonistic pleasure have likely not thought through the pointlessness of their own efforts. It will not make a difference. And if they have thought this through and still are insistent upon efforts towards greater good it is because they have a belief at the root of it. That in itself is a form of religion.

The other alternative for atheism was exactly as Nietzsche proclaimed it would be - nihilism; the belief that all values are without foundation and that nothing can be truly known or communicated. Nietzsche was not necessarily a proponent of nihilism. In fact he warned us of its future. He argued that its toxic effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions in humanity. He also predicted it would lead to the greatest crisis in human history.

With the creeping death of religion in the West, with the accompanying decay of morality and virtue nihilism has taken root and the crisis Nietzsche warned about is upon us. We have seen the decay of value, beauty, morality, virtue, and society writ large. There is no coincidence that belief in institutions beyond just the church have coincided with this undercurrent of unspoken nihilism. It is slowly pervading everything. It will consume the entire world, not just Western society.

That decay is what fascist and communist leaders wish for the west, not realizing it will consume them in turn. They may seek to have unfettered access to a forlorn, nihilistic and unmotivated populace who will easily be suborned to their dictates, but it is a self-defeating effort. Because of the inevitability of entropy, ants can only build an ant hill so high before it collapses upon itself. We in the West appear to be in this stage of collapse. Although it may be far more profound a thing at play than communism vs. capitalism. Sure, communism seeks the overthrow of capitalism but not for some grandiose purpose but rather, whether out of jealousy or true belief, the reality of godless communism is that those at its epicenter seek to rule over others in a society of pointlessness. And in the end the entropic nature of existence will crumble communism as quickly as capitalism if not more quickly. It's a weird perversion of Schopenhauer then which communists have created for themselves. Existence is characterized by suffering that we cannot overcome, only mitigate in small amounts. So, they seek to replace God as the opiate of the masses with their own social religion. To what end? Do they believe it themselves? Probably not but no one can say for sure what another thinks or believes. But in my estimation, it is for their own hedonistic opportunity to minimize their own suffering while selling an impossible dream to the masses. Western traditional liberal thinkers have gotten it exactly right when it comes to assessing the 'virtue' of communism and socialism. As Winston Churchill so eloquently summed it up "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." But that sharing is not meant to include the ruling elite. They will sell it to you as a Utopian possibility but the Utopia they hope to achieve is only for themselves, at your expense.

Putting that aside, the option of nihilism for atheists is clearly not a worthwhile endeavor. As an individual it can only lead to a sense of no self worth and no purpose. That can only lead down negative paths with death as the only destination. For society it means a fragmentation and eventual collapse.

That leaves hedonism, the endless seeking of pleasure and self-indulgence, as the only viable option as an atheist. Given the proclivities of the societal elites not just those of today, but throughout historical empires (from predating Nero to the clients of Jeffery Epstein) it would seem the ruling elite class have long since taken this philosophy as their own. In their self-indulgence they have no qualms about deceiving the rest of society to further their own ends. They live to enrich themselves monetarily and experientially to their own whims. But hedonism contains its own peril. Religion may be the opiate of the masses according to Karl Marx, but there are actual physical opiates that have taken hold. From nicotine to alcohol to fentanyl, far too many people across the globe are addicts, slowly or quickly killing themselves, unaware of their own self worth. The wealthy who themselves are not addicts are still in a manner, doing the same thing: avoiding reality with their hedonistic self-indulgence.

But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth. ~1 Timothy 5:6

Self awareness is a marvelous thing. If instead of a mindless pursuit of pleasure to avoid thinking about our place in the universe, and the meaning of life, you take some time to think about those things for yourself you will be better off; be it through religion or as an atheist. Though the latter may lead you back to the same pointless place.

Spirituality is also a marvelous thing. It opens us up to the possibility of greater purpose. It opens you up to the possibility of development. While spirituality (opening oneself up to the questions of who you are, what is your purpose and what is the meaning of life) does not require religion, but it does open you up to the possibility of religion. Religion is the written and passed down knowledge of the spiritual realm that inevitably comes originally from God. It is the codification of spirituality in an attempt to connect us to God. That connection is spiritual. Spirituality gives suffering meaning. It gives existence meaning. That alone provides the pillars of structure religion and by extension for society. But the precepts of religion go even further in prescribing a morality and virtue based on the notion of the greater good. Both spirituality and religion encourage you to be a better person, both within yourself and within society. Not all religions are equal in this regard but that is a discussion for another day.

Atheists would argue that religion is an egocentric exercise, spirituality too. They put humanity on a level of importance incongruous with our miniscule place in the universe. It is a pretentious exercise in self-importance which overstates our role in the universe. While that may be true, if religion is baseless, it still does not preclude the contribution of spirituality or religion to both societal structure and continuity and individual peace of mind. These two things cannot be glossed over as they both are of utmost importance.

Given that they encourage you to be a better person, both within yourself and within society, religion and spirituality are not an egocentric exercise. They are an attempt to create harmony; both between oneself and God as well as within society. Unless you are a nihilist bent on societal destruction you cannot argue the benefit of those things given the stream of unrelenting entropy in which you swim.

Atheism does not preclude the questions and openness to ideas of spirituality, it merely comes to a different conclusion. The endpoint for atheism is a dark foreboding place, where as spirituality, religion and the requisite faith offers hope and meaning. While that endpoint cannot be proven, the benefits of following the path of faith within this earthly existence can be. That is not the reason I choose a belief in God, nor is it a justification for it. Those choices are deeply personal for everyone and do not require explanation or justification. My personal belief in God comes from somewhere I cannot properly explain other than to say it is a spiritual place.

July 21, 2021

AOC uses capitalism and doesn't realize it

This is as sad as it is funny:

May 3, 2021

A viral video about a problem that can be seen through many lenses

Johnny Harris is a YouTuber who makes some stunning quality videos on a weekly (approximately) basis. I say stunning quality not because of the quality of video editing or videography (although those are quite good) but for the quality of the content. Johnny Harris does journalism the way it's supposed to be done; classic journalism.

I felt not just compelled but obligated to share one of his most recent videos on the subject of Why McDonald's Ice Cream Machines Are Always Broken. It's a video that needs to be seen for several reasons and through several lenses.

Watch the video below a few times. First watch it through the lens of journalism. Look at the extent he goes to in order to validate the claims he's heard. It's as incredible as it is commendable. Not only does he do his due diligence research, he tries to extricate opinion, including his own from fact, and exhorts the viewer to do some investigation of their own (all while warning that doing it to the extent he did is probably not advisable). He even offers disclaimers where he feels opinions are turning up in his video.

The man deserves an award for his efforts (and this video is just one example of that). Contrast what he does with how the mainstream media operates and the dysfunction should become pretty obvious if you are a conservative (less so if you are a raging progressive, but at least try to find something to compare it against). Mainstream media is rife with laziness. It is more than 50% (often far, far more) opinion journalism and not reporting, let alone investigation.

But I've droned on too long already. Watch the video and I'll suggest some other lenses through which to view it afterwards.

Was I right? He even goes beyond the surface explanation was offered everywhere else. Why? Because it seemed far to cut and dry. There's another lens to view this video through - skepticism. The skepticism present in this video should inspire the viewer's skepticism in not just the same subject, but every subject - including his videos. By not being self-serving, he actually is being self-serving because it inspires your trust as well as your skepticism. It can do both. CNN cannot claim the same and deserves far more skepticism than you afford Johnny Harris.

Now think about crony capitalism and why it stifles innovation and hurts small businesses and consumers. This sort of counter-productive activity is being encouraged by a big business and this is just one instance. There are cozy companies being just as lazy and counter-productive as journalists. Laziness and self-serving self-interest are two distinguishing features of crony capitalism. And crony capitalism is not limited big business; it infects government. Bureaucracies like the IRS or the EPA that exists to feed themselves and grow themselves are not above working with Democrats who want to do the same, or big business who want to use legislation to stifle competition. It's ubiquitous as well as nefarious.

American society seems to be on an unalterable path towards an oligopoly of a few big businesses and big government, a path that inevitably leads to dictatorial fascism. A Road To Serfdom (mandatory reading for the uninitiated) indeed. This is why we need to follow Rules For Patriots and prevent it. This stuff truly matters - far more than your YouTube playlist, or when the next season of Stranger Things will be on Netflix. And this brings us back to Johnny Harris and his citizen activism. He's doing something and trying to point out things that matter in order to stop them from happening or from continuing. You should be doing the same.

Or at least due yourself this service: Question what you are told, question the motivation of the teller. Think for yourself and ask critical questions.

January 6, 2021

Short term thinking - Part 3 - Will Capitalism Destroy Itself?

Will capitalism as it has currently evolved into a very significant focus on short term thinking, be able to compete with communist China where they at least work with 5 year plans and with projects like the Belt and Road Initiative take a very long term view?

Long term thinking beats short term thinking every time - in the long run of course. But Capitalism itself is not destined or mandated to work under a short term thinking model. That's a product of it's current iteration. That has not always been the case.

The purpose of capitalism is to provide anyone the opportunity to respond to market needs, in a competitive environment, to allow the development of solutions to serve those needs as quickly and efficiently as possible. Those that respond the best will be rewarded with success. Those who do not respond effectively will fail.

The market will move quickly. Options will become available quickly. That's the advantage of capitalism. Central planning mandates a specific solution that may not be the best one. It's the only one though. It might be fast too, but there's no guarantee the marketplace will resolve what works. With capitalism, what survives longer term is generally the best option. What emerges at first probably gets improved upon either by the innovator or else a shrewd and hungry competitor.

That's the inherent advantage of capitalism over communism, socialism, feudalism, or any other form of governance; it leaves the market (i.e. everyone) free to make up their own minds and whatever serves the general good best, evolves as the winner. Capitalism is always subject to change.

But that is capitalism in general. Somehow it evolved into short term thinking - annual bonuses, quarterly reports, news releases designed to sway perception of value. Human nature is the problem; the quick win, the short cut to victory (cheating, get rich quick schemes, crony capitalism whereby business and government work together to keep each other enriched or in power, even pyramid schemes and Enron). These things are not capitalism, they are not even a byproduct of capitalism but rather the result of human nature. Other systems have their own inherent issues that result from human nature and those might take a different form. Not always - socialism and communism and monarchies are all as susceptible to corruption as is capitalism.

At least with capitalism you are allowed to think about what needs correction. It's pretty much human nature. Dominic Barton discusses the need for long term thinking and how it can be fixed.

The long term lens is the correct lens. But implementing it does not resolve human nature and the desire to take short cuts. All capitalism can do is try to work it's way through the potential short cuts and try to prevent them. But the human nature component will never disappear. Just as we find new ways to thwart money laundering, new ways to money launder get developed. It's a cycle that will repeat forever. Dominic Barton correctly points out that business does not need government to impose a solution. Yes, some regulation is necessary, but business governance should as much as possible be left to business, and the marketplace that govern it. That's the inherent advantage of capitalism and it should be leveraged, not eschewed.

January 5, 2021

Short term thinking - Part 2 - More big examples

Yesterday I started a series on Short term thinking that included Netflix because it is a recent example of how Short term thinking undercuts capitalism (as well as other things). But there are other examples as well. Before I continue with other aspects of the dangers of short term thinking I wanted to include some other examples because it's important that people understand, what Netflix is doing is not an isolated example. This is a common problem with a common and undesired result.

Kodak, Blockbuster, Xerox are a few examples of companies that had an advantage that they squandered. But MySpace is a great example of trying to be quicker to market than potential competitors like Facebook, but in the process, limiting your own longer term potential by avoiding using open source code:

There are of course other examples. Many of the ones in the below video offer other reasons for business failures, such as lack of vision, there are examples like Schlitz that clearly are a result of short term thinking.

Whether the short term thinking is to please investors or to squeeze as much profit out of a drying up revenue stream or some other reason does not matter. The fact is that short term thinking is often fatal. Obviously not always; the stock market is dominated by companies releasing their latest quarterly results. These companies do not all die off. True. But many do die and are replaced by others. Just because they do not all die off at once, does not mean they won't eventually die as a result of their short term thinking. It's practically inevitable that companies die off. That happens for a number of reasons - not responding to changing market conditions, not respecting their customers, prioritizing immediate profit over long term growth.

But when you look at it objectively, all of those reasons come down to short term thinking. Do companies that rise do so by not putting customers first? Do they start by something other than responding to market needs (i.e. changing market conditions)?

Short term thinking is deadly for business. It's deadly for individuals as well, and for governments as we will see in future episodes.

January 4, 2021

Short Term Thinking - Part 1 - The Netflix example

One of the major problems with capitalism in it's current format, is short term thinking. As is so often the case in capitalism, short term gain is chased at the expense of longer term well being or perhaps even greater profit. This is likely tied to the dividend cycle and executive bonus structure, all designed to maximize profit as quickly as possible.

In the past this often manifested itself in harmful ways such as companies polluting without concern, treating employees as assets without concern for their safety (leading to onerous government oversight and difficult restrictions) or reasonable rates of pay (leading to the rise of unions, who did the same short term thinking in response and often stifled company long term viability), or not doing due diligence in safety testing (think Ford Pinto).

As these problems metastasized into bigger problems and led to reactions that dealt, often ineffectively, with the issues, business of course responded in kind to the reactions. More pay and more regulation led to offshoring of jobs (the long term outcome potentially being the destruction of the consumer market as jobs vanished). Of course consumer protection safety was more difficult to deal with and sometimes business had to put up with not being harmful to the general populace. Grudgingly. The reaction to this in the West was of course BREXIT and MAGA. National self-interest to bring jobs back was key driver on both those cases.

But there are of course caveats to this. Firstly not all businesses in capitalist countries are motivated by short term profit. Small mom and pop shops are by necessity, driven by the need to be viable long term. People are personally invested in the success. Corporate investors are driven by the quick-hit rate of return. If your company is returning 8% on the stock purchaser investment and the business across the street, which doesn't even have to be a direct competitor is returning 25%, where do you think investors are going to flock?

There are ways to deal with this. Capitalism itself is not the problem just as socialism is not the solution (as I will show later in this series). The application and management of a capitalist system is what needs to be addressed.

Despite all the corporate wokeness that is going on now, companies stumbling over themselves to show how great they are as global citizens, the short term thinking problem is not going away. Netflix is a great example:

December 10, 2020

Capitalism works

There's a difference between capitalism and socialism obviously. But there's also a difference between socialism and a welfare state. Many European economies that are considered socialist are free market economies that happen to have very large welfare components or in some cases, government ownership in specific industries only. Denmark and Sweden are prime examples of this.

Given that definition, in the video below, out of the top 10 richest countries in the world, 9 are capitalist, with only 1 communist. Of the top 20, there are 5 mixed economies, 1 communist and 14 are capitalist (and arguably 16). And of the top 30 economies, there are 8 mixed economies, 1 socialist/mixed and 1 communist. That means 20 of the top 30 economies are capitalist with 2 of the top 20 moving more and more from mixed towards capitalist.

The point - capitalism creates wealth. Wealth creates improved quality of life for everyone, not just the rich. Would you rather be a poor person in America, with a welfare net or in Bangladesh or North Korea where starvation is a distinct possibility? Capitalism is not evil, it's a good thing that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last century as it has been adapted in new countries. It's not perfect, but it's a close as humanity has come to a fair and free economic system. Where it fails is where it has been corrupted and/or abused.

January 18, 2020

Saturday Learning Series - The case against the welfare state

Via professor Walter Williams.

May 25, 2019

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 9)

Capitalism is humane, deal with it.

May 18, 2019

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 8b)

Continuing with the idea that socialism is evil, let's look at why it fails.

Ben Shapiro explains why socialism fails every time.

He also explains why it fails at being fair and moral:

Follow Ben's logic and you cannot help but conclude that socialism is serfdom.

Reason TV also explains that socialism fails where it is tried:

And yes, it is evil.

And Steven Crowder explains why democratic socialism is still socialism, in case you were tricked by their renaming it (like they did with global warming):

And oh ya, it still doesn't work:

May 11, 2019

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 8a)

Another sidebar here from the main thrust of defending capitalism; the argument today is that socialism not just flawed, it is evil.

Dave Rubin tones it down and explains in reasonable terms why socialism is just not cool (I've shared this one before).

Steven Crowder starts from the position that socialism is indeed evil:

Yaron Brooks explains why it is evil:

But socialism leads to poverty and violence, as it has in Venezuela:

Socialism leads to an unhealthy type of selfishness:

May 4, 2019

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 7)

How do you know capitalism is the right way to go? Look at the list of those who seek to discredit or destroy it. To know someone (or something), know it's enemies.

Osama Bin Laden:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

If you never believed that power doesn't corrupt, her pronouncements about being the boss should convince you that power does corrupt, and since socialism centralizes power and power corrupts, advocating socialism is akin to advocating corruption. But I digress.

All of communism:

communists, continued:

Envy:

Atheism (since it's aligned with communism):

It's an odd mix, I know. But there are a lot more enemies of capitalism: there's a long list that consists of dictators, entitled sensibility people, and a whole host of useful idiots. With all of that aligned against capitalism, it must be right, right?

Well, a list of detractors (negative negatives) does not prove the positivity of capitalism, even though it doesn't hurt. In fact, many of the biggest positives about capitalism are what capitalism is not. It's not authoritarian. It's not sloth-inducing. It's not inhumane. In a way it's a list of negative rights as former president Obama said, which is to say it enumerates what the government is not allowed to do rather than things the government must do. But that's not the whole story - capitalism enables the opposite of those things; freedom, drive to succeed (along with the opportunity to do so where not impeded by government regulation) and through the invisible hand, selfishness as a tool to serve the greater good. In the latter example in particular, it is absolute brilliance.

April 27, 2019

Saturday Learning Series - Defending Capitalism (Part 6b - the Hitler sidebar)

Continuing our sidebar on Nazism being socialism and expounding on the fallout that remains to this day of the lie that Nazism is a right wing ideology. As a sidebar to the sidebar, it dovetails precisely with Democrats trying to (and succeeding) convince African Americans of the lie that the Republicans are the party of slavery and racism. The left lies and it lies often enough to make the lie seem like it is the truth. The purpose of this series is to share the truth, and the truth is that Nazis were socialists.

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian

Jordan Peterson explains the pathology and dangers of national socialism (Nazism):

Nazism is socialism, and socialism is evil. But don't you dare confront them or you will be met with righteous indignation despite the truth:

Clearly the truth hurts their feelings and the EU parliament is supposed to be a safe space for socialists. Isn't it? Kamall should not have apologized, he was right.

Pages