The Crisis Of Capitalism In 11 Minutes

[4588686]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26o22Y33h9s"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26o22Y33h9s[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

I'll post for Winchester and Nihil.

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OZGhHpWTSg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OZGhHpWTSg[/url]

[4588686]

His pinnacle of the consumerist/capitalist is walmart. That says a lot. It was an interesting lecture though. Genuinly, he seems like a fun guy.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Hasan

[RezaMikhaeil]

Nearly everything that this video blames on "Capitalism" is incorrect. It's either Cronie Capitalism or Socialism, which is the opposite of Austrian Economics. The video goes on to say that land ownership isn't good, which is incorrect. Land ownership brings about economics and social prosperity.

The video itself tells many half truths and false truths. It acts like no capitalists saw the mortgage and financial crisis coming. This is completely false. Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and many others saw it coming a mile away. They had been talking about it for decades [google: peter schiff was right]. The video also doesn't acknowledge what damage printing paper money has done to the economy and taking the country off sound money.

Nearly everything that he blames on capitalism, such as corporations getting welfare hand outs, to bailouts, to everything is not capitalism. It's socialism and cronie capitalism.

Last the man in the video claims that he hasn't offered any solutions. That is false because he seems to praise the ideas of Marxism.

[4588686]

Well Harvey uses Marx descriptively rather than prescriptively, so while he would praise the ideas of Marx that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks he has any solutions.

Has there ever been a truely capitalist society?

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1331812706' post='2401046']
Well Harvey uses Marx descriptively rather than prescriptively, so while he would praise the ideas of Marx that doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks he has any solutions.

Has there ever been a truely capitalist society?
[/quote]

Well that's irrelevant and a bit of a red herring. What is relevant is that one needs to be able to know the difference between cronie capitalism and capitalism. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Winchester]

So for this guy, government using force to uphold special favors for banks, overseen by a central bank with magical powers bestowed upon them to inflate, is capitalism?

[Ice_nine]

whut iz capitalizm? lyk i dun even kno

[4588686]

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1331814265' post='2401051']
Well that's irrelevant and a bit of a red herring. What is relevant is that one needs to be able to know the difference between cronie capitalism and capitalism. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
[/quote]

No it's not. If capitalism has never been implemented despite it being a dominate economic mindset of the western world for several hundred years now then that does raise of question of whether such an economic system is even feasible to construct.

I mean by your logic you can't criticize socialism or Marxism since neither have ever been fully or purely implemented. I think you can. I think you can look at the predatory behavior of private institutions and infer that such behavior would continue if no state existed. You can look at the behavior of Leninist states and see very dark things about Leninism when mixed with human error. If a political philosophy cannot operate in conjunction with human frailty then it's useless as a prescriptive model

Edited March 15, 2012 by Hasan

[4588686]

I've also noticed you doing something thay many Libertarians seem to do (no offense). Whenever someone points to actually existing problems with the (seemingly) capitalist elements of mixed economies you retort that that's not 'real' capitalism' but rather 'socialism'. But of course no purely socialist state has ever existed either. So it seems like an unfair tactic. Demand absolute purity in the model when discussing the benefits vs dangers of capitalism but acknowledging no such impurity when attacking 'socialism;

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iV5ve6L5wA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iV5ve6L5wA[/url]

[Era Might]

Is the creation of "wealth" and "prosperity" a human good? Obviously, it's an economic good, but is modern economics human? I suppose the real question is whether "society" is natural or human.

Would anyone work at burger king if they weren't compelled to by their status as lower working class? What is capitalist class but the attempt to regulate uneven power statuses? I don't think communism necessarily does any better...trying to abolish class probably leads to even more problems than trying to regulate it. But is any of this "natural"?

The essential idea behind socialism seems right to me: an independent authority is better entrusted with things than various individuals whose only true motive is not the state or society, but their own profit. Capitalism is better at that kind of freedom, it seems, because it opens up the possibility for each man to be his own king. But when that competition of kings eventually gives way to superkings, and eventually power gets concentrated in a few (the infamous 1% to borrow OWS slang).

But, at the same time, even though the attribution of power to the state in socialism theoretically makes sense, it makes it easier to get what you got in the 20th century...totalitarian states.

So I guess capitalism fits America's protestant conception of authority and freedom, but I don't know that America would still be around if capitalism were allowed full reign. There's only so many kings the market can bear...and when the peasants get restless, it leads to trouble, a lot of which was diffused in the 20th century through various movements that demanded things of the state (labor movements, civil rights, etc.).

Anyway, I don't know what I'm saying. Carry on. I guess my real point is that our economics is not "natural." It is a theoretical system, which helps tame and direct passions and tendencies and desires and goods, but it is not something that is somehow "inherent" to us. I don't think capitalism is inherent to how we are naturally than a suit and tie is...we could just as easily (and perhaps more comfortably) wear a toga.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Era Might

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1331834966' post='2401256']

Anyway, I don't know what I'm saying. Carry on. I guess my real point is that our economics is not "natural." It is a theoretical system, which helps tame passions and tendencies and desires and goods, but it is not something that is somehow "inherent" to us. I don't think capitalism is inherent to how we are naturally than a suit and tie is...we could just as easily wear a toga.
[/quote]

It's an interesting idea, but ultimately I don't agree. I think maybe we understand what economics are in different ways though.
At the core of things, economics simply describes how we ration scarce goods. Obviously scarcity wouldn't exist in an un-fallen world, so it's not natural in that sense, but within a fallen world it's one of the most natural concepts that exists. An economic system exists wherever people exist together with scarce resources, which is always the case. The system itself can be simpler or more complicated, but I think that's more a function of how many people are involved, and how much resource is available.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331835237' post='2401261']
It's an interesting idea, but ultimately I don't agree. I think maybe we understand what economics are in different ways though.
At the core of things, economics simply describes how we ration scarce goods. Obviously scarcity wouldn't exist in an un-fallen world, so it's not natural in that sense, but within a fallen world it's one of the most natural concepts that exists. An economic system exists wherever people exist together with scarce resources, which is always the case. The system itself can be simpler or more complicated, but I think that's more a function of how many people are involved, and how much resource is available.
[/quote]
Ah! Certainly "economics" is a human concern. But even that assumption of scarcity is hardly certain. We can define things as "scarce" merely because we want more of something. That doesn't mean it's actually scarce, or that we even need it. But it seems that modern economics is precisely this creation of needs and wants, and the deeper you get, the more theoretical and divorced from reality it becomes.

I find economics interesting, but I don't know that the academic discipline we usually associate with "economics" is the same as economics as a type of moral philosophy. I don't think that wealth and prosperity are real human desires. I think the desire for wealth and prosperity is a logical consequence of the theoretical and artificial creation of wants and needs.

So certainly, "economy" as a pattern of ordering and regulating is always going to be part of human affairs. A man's household is an economy. He has to be able to regulate and well order what goes on...but I think it'd be a pity if a man ran his household economy like the theoretical and unhuman system we call "economics."

Edited March 15, 2012 by Era Might