Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Capitalism



One of my best friends is an unreconstructed Marxist. She is always going on about the evils of “Capitalism”, but what exactly does she, or anyone else for that matter, mean by this term?

“Capital” refers to goods set aside for the production of further goods – the fisherman’s net or the artisan’s tools, for instance are capital. So humans have been employing capital since the Stone Age. And markets have also been around for about the same length of time. Money is merely a medium of exchange, to avoid the need for bartering actual goods. So what is this “Capitalism”?



Clearly, our systems of economic organisation are not good for the environment and often lead to extremes of wealth and poverty, but what precisely is the problem? Is is our tax systems? It is joint-stock companies and the privileged position they enjoy? It is systems of land tenure? Everyone occupies land, but could there be something wrong with the legal and fiscal framework under which land holdings operate? My friend advocates “common ownership”, but how would this work and would it really help the situation? After all, it is a legal fact that the Sovereign owns all the land in England and holds it on behalf of the nation, but in practice, there is no difference between freeholding and absolute ownership of land. Under “common ownership”, how would land be allocated, by whom and on what terms?

It seems that in economics, there is a laxity in the use of terms and definitions that would not be tolerated in the physical sciences, and perhaps that is the problem, as nothing can ever be systematically analysed.

Kommentarer

Anonymous sa…
From what I know, capitalism is meant to be the way for the individual to make his own living- the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer. It has its plus sides in theory, but recently I can't help but see it in a negative light.

I know this is a bit of a different focus on the term, but capitalism is meant to create the individual from the mass. Communism is meant to create equality although in practice it has its flaws. The thing is I don't see capitalism creating the individual. I see it as isolating and flawed. Advertising etc creates an image which is taken to be the desirous, and if you do't go along with the crowd, you are isolated. Many people go along with the crowd, and then the individual is lost to the power. The isolated individual is an outsider who is shunned or made fun of.

Take football, for example. It is a major economy. I think football is an interesting and clever sport, but it has way too much money pumped into it when it is only an entertainment source. We see greedy managers and players in their surreal worlds playing with their admirer's money when it could be spend on either the viewers playing football themselves, or giving a decent wage to teachers or nurses who are educating or easing the pain of others. Like I said before, the richer getting richer and the poorer getting poorer.

It seems to me that the big money is in the wrong places. Fashion is another example of wasted money but I wont go into that.

Capitalism represents a flawed and false view of freedom.

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...