How Capitalism Saved America

[Flame Of Liberty]

Here is a a good article (and even better book) for those of you who believe in evil capitalism, glory of collectivism, for those who have been told myriads of economic and historical myths (Great Depression and FDR, etc.) and still believe them:

The title of the book may initially seem to be an exercise in hyperbole, but such is not the case. How Capitalism Saved America is indeed the untold history of our country. After a brief introduction and two very crucial introductory chapters on the nature of capitalism and the perpetrators of anticapitalism, DiLorenzo takes us through nine chapters of American history — from the Pilgrims to the recent California energy "crisis" — and shows "how, from the very beginning, capitalism has been vital to America's growth, and how excessive government interference in the economy has only exacerbated economic problems and stifled growth."

Because it was Marx himself who coined the term, it is no surprise that capitalism has been falsely thought to benefit only capitalists and the rich while exploiting workers and the poor. DiLorenzo dismisses as Marxist propaganda the idea that capitalism is "a zero-sum game in which 'somebody wins, somebody loses.'" Instead, "Capitalism succeeds precisely because free exchange is mutually advantageous." And not only does it succeed, it is "the source of civilizations and human progress." Capitalism has "brought to the masses products and services that were once considered luxuries available only to the rich." Capitalism is not only "the best-known source of upward economic mobility," it "actually reduces income inequalities within a nation." In short, capitalism alleviates poverty, raises living standards, expands economic opportunity, and enables scores of millions to live longer, healthier, and more peaceful lives.

The author spares no one in showing the tremendous anticapitalist bias in existence today: the entertainment industry, universities, intellectuals, private foundations, journalists, radio and television personalities, columnists, government regulators and agencies, environmentalists, politicians, egalitarians, ministers, priests, religious leaders. Indeed, even "most businesspeople are not even capitalists." DiLorenzo indicts large corporations, not because they are large or because they are corporations, but because "many corporations support interventionist or anticapitalist policies like trade protectionism or corporate welfare because they hope to benefit from the policies at everyone else's expense."

One of the most common objections to the ideal of a free society based completely on private property is the matter of transportation-railroads, canals, and roads. In "Highways of Capitalism" DiLorenzo tackles this concern head on and destroys the myths of the "free-rider" and "eminent domain" problems. The fact is "most roads and canals were privately financed in the nineteenth century." Because economics is the main decision-making criterion in private road building and politics is the main decision-making criterion in government road building, "private road building is inherently more efficient than government-run road building." DiLorenzo labels the calls for tax-funded transportation projects for what they are: "corporate welfare."

An even bigger myth than the cause of and remedy for the Great Depression is that FDR's economic policies got us out of the Great Depression. DiLorenzo calls this the "biggest economic myth of the twentieth century," and appropriately makes "How the New Deal Crippled Capitalism" his longest chapter. Roosevelt's grasp of economics was even less than that of Hoover. Because he believed that low prices caused the Depression, FDR paid farmers to burn their crops and slaughter their livestock. This was followed by paying farmers not to grow crops or raise livestock. Roosevelt's alphabet soup of new federal programs and agencies (NRA, NIRA, AAA, CCC, WPA, TVA, Social Security, Fair Labor Standards Act, National Labor Relations Act, etc.) destroyed jobs and hindered recovery.

What They Won't Tell You About Capitalism

[Devils'Advocate]

I agree. I have seen the wonders that laissez-faire capitalism has done for places like Somalia. There is no government with any real power, so capitalism has free reign. Everything is pay-as-you-go. All roads are toll roads. All services, such as firefighters, are pay-per-use. Water treatment/purification is built into the water bill. Electricity is a funny thing because there are so many competing companies that there are areas with 3 sets of power lines. Laissez-faire capitalism at its finest.

Of course, having to deal with all the dead bodies in the street, the daily rapes, the starvation of the poor, the warlords with private "brothels".... all that really sucks, but it is more than made up for with the economic gain that they have made with money ruling the day over government.

Here is an interesting story. Without a government, nobody is patrolling the waters off the shore. At night other countries are dumping industrial waste, including radioactive waste on the shoreline. The tsunami washed the waste into a village. The village of 200 people is now dead. But this is one of the joys that they now have without a government. Think of the surprise when they opened these barrels that these people otherwise wouldn't have had!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Even in the United States we see what more capitalism means. A *HUGE* cap between the rich and the poor. A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Devils`Advocate+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Devils`Advocate)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I agree. I have seen the wonders that laissez-faire capitalism has done for places like Somalia. There is no government with any real power, so capitalism has free reign. Everything is pay-as-you-go. All roads are toll roads. All services, such as firefighters, are pay-per-use. Water treatment/purification is built into the water bill. Electricity is a funny thing because there are so many competing companies that there are areas with 3 sets of power lines. Laissez-faire capitalism at its finest. [/b]

Thats great we agree.

Originally posted by Devils`Advocate@
Of course, having to deal with all the dead bodies in the street, the daily rapes, the starvation of the poor, the warlords with private "brothels".... all that really sucks, but it is more than made up for with the economic gain that they have made with money ruling the day over government.

Yo mean like this:

For years, residents of the sugar farming village of Jawhar watched their lives torn apart by Somalia's descent into anarchy.

Looters in the 1990s burned the mammoth sugar factory, which once provided 1,500 jobs, and peddled the remains as scrap metal. Irrigation canals along the muddy Shabelle River rusted shut, flooding thousands of hectares of crops and desiccating thousands more.

Shootings and rapes were an everyday occurrence as marauding local militias extorted money from drivers, business owners and even the hospital.

Fed up with the bloodshed and tired of waiting for a federal government, town leaders made a bold decision in 2001. They invited a rich businessman from Mogadishu, the capital, to move to Jawhar and become their warlord.
...
But for the people of Jawhar, the deal they made to install a warlord appears to be paying off. Today the village is an oasis of stability in war-torn south-central Somalia, and the region is seen by some as a possible model for rebuilding the collapsed state.

More here

<!--QuoteBegin-Devils`Advocate
Here is an interesting story. Without a government, nobody is patrolling the waters off the shore. At night other countries are dumping industrial waste, including radioactive waste on the shoreline. The tsunami washed the waste into a village. The village of 200 people is now dead. But this is one of the joys that they now have without a government. Think of the surprise when they opened these barrels that these people otherwise wouldn't have had![/quote]

You mean this?

"After the December Tsunami had swept 3000 kilometers across the Indian Ocean, Somali fisherman Hassan Abdi discovered a large metal container in the surf north of Mogadishu. The dirt-poor people of Somalia recycle any material resource, thus Abdi and his friends hauled the three-meter container into town to cut up as scrap metal. Warned not to tamper with it, the fishermen left it outside a former government building in Mogadishu."

Toxic waste washed up by tsunami

BTW are you attacking free market capitalism because other _states_ dump industrial waste into the ocean? You got culprits mixed up with victims. The somalis are so poor (thanks to years under opression, tyrany and marxism) they cannot defend their property against oppresive regimes from other countries. Yeah lets blame capitalism for that.

Point is, Somalis are better off without the state. And they will keep on getting better as long as other countries, international organizations wont poke their noses where they dont belong.

As for rapes, murders and other crimes, are you saying they are a result of the non-existence of the state? So I guess Canada or the US is crime free then?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Or maybe you can check out this World Bank report on Somalia:

Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 - an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia`s private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent.

Somalia is the quintessential failed state. After the autocratic regime of Siad Barre fell in 1991, the country collapsed into civil war. Peace has been established in some regions, but Somalia has only a limited government in the Northwest and no recognized government in the South. In these circumstances the private sector has been surprisingly innovative. Competition thrives in markets where transactions are simple, such as retail and construction. In more complex sectors, such as telecommunications and electricity supply, the private solutions are flawed but impressive: coverage has expanded since the 1980s, and prices are attractive compared with those in other African countries.

...

As a result, Somalia boasts lower rates of extreme poverty and, in some cases, better infrastructure than richer countries in Africa (table 1).

Anarchy and Invention

[mykalberta]

Originally posted by Devils'Advocate@Sep 3 2005, 06:58 AM
Even in the United States we see what more capitalism means. A *HUGE* cap between the rich and the poor. A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.

I have heard alot of people recently use that same or similar quote

"A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members."

Where did you read this?

Rome is easily the greatest society of all times (Roman history/philosohy was my minor), and its not judged by "how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members."

Hungry and confused.

MYK

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by mykalberta+Sep 13 2005, 06:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (mykalberta @ Sep 13 2005, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Devils'Advocate@Sep 3 2005, 06:58 AM
Even in the United States we see what more capitalism means. A *HUGE* cap between the rich and the poor. A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.

I have heard alot of people recently use that same or similar quote

"A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members."

Where did you read this?

Rome is easily the greatest society of all times (Roman history/philosohy was my minor), and its not judged by "how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members."

Hungry and confused.

MYK[/b][/quote]
If you were a Chinese history/philosophy minor, would the Ming or Tang dynasties be the 'greatest society of all times'? If you minored in Latin American studies, would the Aztecs trump everyone?

By what standards do you measure 'the greatest society of all time'? Most people killed? Most area conquered? Most orgies performed? Biggest buildings? Longest roads? Most decadent?

I'm not contesting that Rome was one of, if not the 'greatest', empires of all time. Greatest society? I have no idea how one would go about measuring that. Most 'dominant' society? Probably. I think the 'greatest' society to live in would have been pre-invasion North America... THAT's the way to live. But, of course, my judgement is as subjective as yours.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 3 2005, 08:13 AM
Lots of the usual...

I suppose you plan on moving to Somalia?

Sounds like heaven on earth to a guy with your opinions.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 13 2005, 09:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 13 2005, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Sep 3 2005, 08:13 AM
Lots of the usual...

I suppose you plan on moving to Somalia?

Sounds like heaven on earth to a guy with your opinions. [/b][/quote]
How about you offer some counter arguments? Anyway, this thread was not meant to be about Somalia but I digress.

As for me moving, I guess you think that slavery and obedience is a default human condition and we should be grateful for the wonderful world the government is creating for us. And if one doesnt like it, then he gets shipped out, preferably on a cattle train...

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 13 2005, 01:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 13 2005, 01:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Sep 3 2005, 08:13 AM
Lots of the usual...

I suppose you plan on moving to Somalia?

Sounds like heaven on earth to a guy with your opinions. [/b][/quote]
Maybe we should take up a collection to make it so, but that would be an example of collectivism and might only feed FOL's paranoia.

[Ro]

Originally posted by mykalberta@Sep 13 2005, 11:05 AM
Rome is easily the greatest society of all times (Roman history/philosohy was my minor), and its not judged by "how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members."

Can you elaborate on that for me/others interested?

Not trying to be cheeky, just generally curious. It would be interesting to hear what sort of criteria are used to evaluate such a thing and what exactly set the ancient Romans apart.

[tjinaz]

So what do you tell the 40 million Stalin killed, the 9 million Pol Pot killed, the victims of the Cultural revolution in China and the millions starving in N. Korea that Socialism rules over Capitalism and look at how good they have it?

As much as everyone bags on Capitalism, in this case its extreme form in Somalia, what about the extreme forms of Socialism? No system has killed more than Communism.

[Coolsurfer79]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Sep 14 2005, 08:22 AM
So what do you tell the 40 million Stalin killed, the 9 million Pol Pot killed, the victims of the Cultural revolution in China and the millions starving in N. Korea that Socialism rules over Capitalism and look at how good they have it?

As much as everyone bags on Capitalism, in this case its extreme form in Somalia, what about the extreme forms of Socialism? No system has killed more than Communism.

Don't mix up political and economic systems.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Sep 14 2005, 03:22 PM
So what do you tell the 40 million Stalin killed, the 9 million Pol Pot killed, the victims of the Cultural revolution in China and the millions starving in N. Korea that Socialism rules over Capitalism and look at how good they have it?

As much as everyone bags on Capitalism, in this case its extreme form in Somalia, what about the extreme forms of Socialism? No system has killed more than Communism.

I suppose this could be easily countered by suggesting that 'Maoism', 'Stalinism', and 'Leninism' are far cries apart from Karl Marx' version of Communism.

Some socialist systems were certainly in place, but they looked and acted a whole lot more like Dictatorship/Oligarchies than any modern philisophical-political definition of 'Socialism' and 'Communism'. If you think that these are necessary characteristics of socialist systems, many socialist European states experience fairly average amounts genocide/oppression compared to the US or (ugh) Somalia. Canada has huge aspects of socialism in it's health and law enforcement organizations, for example, and we've kept our mass-killings well below the millions.

If you think Stalin's USSR = the Socialist's dream, then you've been wearing your blinders too long. Learn about your beefs, then talk about them. Not vice versa.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Sep 14 2005, 08:22 AM
As much as everyone bags on Capitalism, in this case its extreme form in Somalia, what about the extreme forms of Socialism?

That I won't argue with you. It's FoL that seems to be holding up the extreme of Capitalism as the ultimate system.

But there have been democratically elected Communist governments (Poland is one example of where it has happened). Communism doesn't always mean fascism... just that that is the most common implementation.

FoL: I just don't think that electing a government to act as a co-ordinating body for the people constitutes slavery.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Coolsurfer79@Sep 14 2005, 04:30 PM
Don't mix up political and economic systems.

Both capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Differentiating between socialism and communism is semantics, because communism is essentially socialism with added flavour of inter-class struggle ideology.

Socialism must be conceptualized as an institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property and private property claims.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a social system based on the explicit recognition of private property and of nonaggressive, contractual exchanges between private property owners.

Those two are at the opposite ends of a scale, there is no 3rd dimension. What matters is the overall degree of interference with property rights that exists in a given country (the overall degree of socialism that is crippling the society).

Aso for the political system, Oppenheimer called the method of production, generally followed by voluntary exchange of such products the economic means. The other method is the unilateral seizure of the products of another: the expropriation of another man’s property by violence. This predatory method of getting wealth Oppenheimer aptly termed the political means. By this definition, political system itself is a degenerative element "built" on top of an economic system. Get rid of it, and what you are left with is economic system - one based on liberty and private property, the other based on agression against liberty and private property. The rest is purely balast.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@Sep 14 2005, 04:47 PM
I suppose this could be easily countered by suggesting that 'Maoism', 'Stalinism', and 'Leninism' are far cries apart from Karl Marx' version of Communism.

Some socialist systems were certainly in place, but they looked and acted a whole lot more like Dictatorship/Oligarchies than any modern philisophical-political definition of 'Socialism' and 'Communism'. If you think that these are necessary characteristics of socialist systems, many socialist European states experience fairly average amounts genocide/oppression compared to the US or (ugh) Somalia. Canada has huge aspects of socialism in it's health and law enforcement organizations, for example, and we've kept our mass-killings well below the millions.

If you think Stalin's USSR = the Socialist's dream, then you've been wearing your blinders too long. Learn about your beefs, then talk about them. Not vice versa.

How do you figure that communism “could work” without tyranny and blood shed? To make it work you have got to strip millions of people off their property. How are you going to do that peacefully? The only way is to do it through aggression – small group of rulers decide what everyone has to do and you have to give in or die. “Inside enemies” are not tolerated, opposition is crushed. The future is bright; nobody is allowed to stand in its way. Tyranny is the natural outcome of communism (full fledged socialism, as explained in the post above). You may want to try to dance around the issue, but really, you can’t.

Stagnation is only short term phenomenon. The society is either moving towards freedom or towards collectivism. The role of the state is either decreasing or growing, and once it crosses the line… So if you think that “huge aspects of socialism” can be kept under control, you are kidding yourself. It is a slippery slope, the oppression is creeping in. The ever growing role of the state is the evidence of that.

[Flame On]

What a thread. Why are you so bent on convincing everyone how great you believe capatalism is? I bet even you could come up with some downsides to it everyone else certainly could. Capatalism run within it's true spirit works, as does communism. Unfortunately neither have really ever occured although western governments have gotten closer than communists have been able.
Social degredation, exploitation, widening of have and havenots, pollution and environmental erosion, corruption, facism, war, imperialsim etc etc. all have been linked to your vaunted system. I know the others have had many of these also but don't try to hold up capatalism as some pantheon of success and virtue, it ain't.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 15 2005, 10:16 AM
How do you figure that communism “could work” without tyranny and blood shed? To make it work you have got to strip millions of people off their property. How are you going to do that peacefully? The only way is to do it through aggression – small group of rulers decide what everyone has to do and you have to give in or die. “Inside enemies” are not tolerated, opposition is crushed. The future is bright; nobody is allowed to stand in its way. Tyranny is the natural outcome of communism (full fledged socialism, as explained in the post above). You may want to try to dance around the issue, but really, you can’t.

Stagnation is only short term phenomenon. The society is either moving towards freedom or towards collectivism. The role of the state is either decreasing or growing, and once it crosses the line… So if you think that “huge aspects of socialism” can be kept under control, you are kidding yourself. It is a slippery slope, the oppression is creeping in. The ever growing role of the state is the evidence of that.

Fair enough. I'd debate the points, but, since all government is criminally thieving from us all of our hard-earned resources (apparently), I don't see any possibility for a middle-ground.

If you're middle/upper-class, you're right, Capitalism is a godsend. Of course, I believe that only 10-20 percent of the world falls into those categories. The rest are screwed.

Are you saying that 'capitalist' Somalia is a better place to live than 'communist' East Germany was? Both had their faults, but...

[Lurch]

Capitalism, on the other hand, is a social system based on the explicit recognition of private property and of nonaggressive, contractual exchanges between private property owners.

How does private property become private? North America was collectively owned and then expropriated from a socialist collective, stripping the collective of their property rights at the barrel of a gun. The movement from system to another is unavoidably violent and unfair to some, beneficial to others. When countries go from capitalism to extreme socialism is inherently no different than what has happened historically when property rights are created out of thin air because someone has bigger guns. Neither system can be created without displacing what was there beforehand, generally via force of arms.

You go further in your presumptions, at least as I read them. Implying that private property rights can exist without a well developed collective legal and political system assumes that there is some sort of natural law that can be used to resolve all disputes between private property holders. Rights are only rights when a collective agrees to uphold them.

[tjinaz]

You look at the capitalist system from the top down. I look at it from the bottom up. To me it is about choice. I believe I am smart enough in most circumstances to make the correct responsible decisions for me and my family. I also believe most others like me are fully capable of doing the same thing. This is capitalism. I keep as much of my own money as possible because I think I know what my family needs more than a government who cannot possibly keep track of my current status. Granted we will need some protection from predatory companies and infrastructure support for roads and utilities, fire, law enforcement, but the less government the better.

From my perspective what the socialist believe is that the average joe is incapable of or too lazy to make important decisions and needs the care of someone smarter than him/her self to get by in this world, namely the government. This is where I run into problems. This perspective automatically divides the country into sheep and shepards. The shepards will always think they know best and may have the best intentions but as the saying goes power corrupts. This to me is where you get the elitest government technocrat that has massive influence without even being elected. I think at its worst it is a recipe for corruption, waste and abuse of power, at best it is a straight path for mediocre services and long lines.

Oh and during the great depression... Russia was viewed as a socailist paradise. People were actually moving from Europe and the US to live there. I think they realised too late it wasn't.