Ha-Joon Chang - 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 май 2024
- Development economics expert Ha-Joon Chang dispels the myths and prejudices that have come to dominate our understanding of how the world works in a lecture at the RSA.
I loved the point concerning child labor as an infringement on the free market. Spot on example.
Fantastic economist. He has his head in the right place.
I've been reading his books for political economy classes and he's amazing. Gives an amazing insight into the world economy and will give any economy student a great critical outlook on neoclassical economics
This man deserves the Nobel Prize in Economics.
agree
through reading this guy alone I got a first in my last economics essay, and I'm a psi student. he is my first last and only academic idol. thankyou
I love the little "hmm?" he adds after some sentences.
...virtually all of today's rich nations became rich through the use of, trade protection, government subsidy and regulation rather than free trade, free market policies"
This is why Ha-Joon Changs book, "23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism" is on my winter reading list.
+Ken Bell Bad Samaritans is all about that topic, same author.
+zombiesingularity thank you.
It really was a great book, and very enlightening.
zombiesingularity Yeah, I just got to know about it literally few minutes earlier. Read its preface (google books), looking forward to read it. So that I can balance my views.
Protectionism enriches some at the expense of others. In his book, "Protection or Free Trade," Henry George observed that even the elimination of all barriers to trade would enrich some at the expense of others. Landed interests would be enriched. Workers would find the costs of leasing or purchasing housing would climb because land prices would climb.
I read his book recently .. Marvelous book .. Strongly adviced .. His speech now is not as clear as his writing there .. Just Get his book and enjoy unfolding a new ecomonic mystries - yours , Mohammed Qabazard (Kuwait)
Do you perhaps have any interest in access to market opportunities in the South African economy. Maybe we can expound on this conversation via Skype or email.
"We have to have pessimism of the intellect, but optimism of the will." brilliant. And brilliant analysis of the brainwashing of the free marketeers. I also love Ha-Joon Chang's dry humor: "The vatican has a lot of smart people." "In the economics profession today, interest in the real world is an indirect admission that you are not very good."
“95% of economics is common sense made complicated”. Lol.
Someone on tic too was like “what’s the point of life?” And some one responded “to pick berries, but they made it complicated.”
The fact that you made the capability to read polysyllable word a prerequisite for reading his book has chilling implications. The fact that people in the 21st century still face such a high rate of illiteracy in developed countries shows some of the failings inherent in the current economic model.
I will definitely try to find a copy of his book and thank you for encouraging people to become more aware of how economics work. And thank you RSA for sharing these discussions with all of us.
this is the kind of economic analysis [ANALYSIS not description] we need in tertiary education. Brilliant
Love Ha Joon Chang. He questions the evidence and the myth of free market capitalism. Read Bad Samaritans and really loved it...
"Active economic citizenship" -- now there's a cause worth promoting! Thank you, Ha-Joon.
Glad I found this guy, he may well turn out to be our generations Leon Trotsky. Great teacher
Absolutely, there is a political motivation to constantly praise free market neoliberalism as a wonderful system. It is no different to the lauding of communism as the best system even as it was clearly on its death bed in the late 80s in Eastern Europe. Once you have committed yourself to supporting a system and often overcome opposition to that end, it becomes very difficult to subsequently say it isn't working as well as you thought it would. Its failures are deliberately swept under the carpet and any data which might support it are often exaggerated wildly.
what kind of self delusion could bring one to the place where one can equate the failings of capitalism with the failings of communism?
Paul Halfpenny He is not equating the failings if either system. He is equating the attitutes of the "intellectual" supporters of both systems.
Paul Halfpenny
what kind of self delusion could bring one to the place where one can equate the failings of capitalism with the failings of communism?
Equating Neoliberalism with capitalism is another kind of self delusion. He didnt equate the failures of capitalism with the failures of communism. He said the failures of Neoliberalism because as Ha joon points out there are more than one kind of Capitalism that may work better than Neoliberal Freidmanite trickle down economics. It is a form of Zombie capitalism because it should have stayed dead after 2008 yet somehow its corpse is still walking around
@@paulhalfpenny1139 Well, what are the failures of each, and what causes those failures? You need to know those things in order to then compare the failures of capitalism against the failures of communism.
You CAN obviously compare the size of the elite, decision-making class in each system. It's small in both cases. Decisions are being made by the powerful disproportionately to the people who are actually being directly affected by the decisions. Whether there are CEOs and corporate boards of wealthy stockholders, or party oligarchs and government committees of powerful bureaucrats... are the workers/consumers directly making any of the decisions? No. Decisions are centralized with a ruling class either way (increasingly so, as the major corporations command larger and larger market shares).
What about in social democracies, which are being increasingly praised in modern politics? Power is more decentralized, because wealth is more decentralized, and there is more democraric control of the government. There is more economic equality. While major decisions are still being made by an elite class overall, there is more of a buffer against failure in the event of an economic downturn due to incompetence, because average people are not entirely reliant on their job OR on the government. They have some of their own money to continue their lives as normal, and the government works like a lifeboat in such a scenario, thowing out lifejackets.
Even more successful might be if the working consumers directly participated in market decisions, with power to contribute in management at their workplaces, and if they democratically controlled the accumulated profits at businesses. That would allow the economy to be largely circular, as money would flow from worker to worker, without accumulating in off-shore bank accounts and being taken out of circulation, likely gathering interest the whole time. The government could still function as a lifeboat in such a system, although less intrusively, since it could potentially tax businesses instead of individuals.
Obviously, that system is quite a bit different from communism. But, the workers do gain ownership of the means of production, which means it is a form of socialism. There seems to be no obvious reason for why it could not work. Power is sufficiently decentralized.
@CytherLynx The first part of Zeitgeist: Moving Forward actually covers what you just said in great detail, which is why I like that film more than the others to date. The expert analysis and real scientific study involved.
Everybody who is able to read sentences with polysyllable words in any language in which this book is available should read it. If you've graduated from high-school, you should read it. Sadly, though, I haven't even managed to convince one single friend of mine to read it because everybody has too many books to read, nowadays. But economics ARE important to our day-to-day lives and to our future, so we NEED to learn more, all of us. A couple of people isn't enough: we need wide-spread knowledge.
@Dirge987 It is. The amount of purchasing power you command is connected to your status in society, which is a power factor. Your "voice" is "louder" when you command more purchasing power. You also make friendships in the upper echelon if you become one of them, something that is connected to the amount of purchasing power you command. It goes both ways. A person of high status also has the means to directly affect political outcomes through use of their purchasing power.
Pro tip = Anarcho-syndicalism, make it happen folks.
Yes. It's all about democracy. A synthesis between Marxism and anarchism is the key. We need to start organizing as soon as possible.
Wonderful book...
THANK YOU. I haven't had such a good laugh in years!!! I didn't think anyone was foolish enough to seriously reference Michael Parenti anymore let alone a Pirate Television Non Sequitur-fest.
Thatnks for the sources - they're hilarious!!!
Interesting, gotta check this book out
7:45 the pure truth!
@madvideoman: I empathise with your comment but it is the few considered and reasoned people who comment that make it worth it.
Don't stop providing the constructive discourse.
Love Ha Joon Chang. He questions the evidence and the myth of free market capitalism. Read Bad Samaritans and really loved it...
Calpitalism comes in all forms; the IMF and World Bank (and Ronald Reagan) do not have the last word in capitalism. Swedish capitalism is not laissez-faire free market capitalism, but the country is one of the richest, most equitable countries in the world.
This book is brilliant, just finished reading it. It could easily have been called '23 things I like about capitalism'.
Capitalism is evil. You are better off reading books by Richard Wolff and Karl Marx.
@dudicito free in price would be nice, but how do you handle scarcity?
Haha the ending is brilliant
Yes, that's one of the many point he made that has ensured his place as a complete laughinstock in the economics field.
@capncrunch93able Great Comment!! I have always appreciate the direct approach. Thanks for the clarity. I have no more time for b.s., eh-heh---as if any of us do, eh?!
I want to see this guy debate any one of the scholars at the Mises Institute.
Well, in highly polluted places like Tokyo and some cities in China people DO have to pay for clean oxygen nowadays.
I'm a sucker for a Matrix analogy haha
I find that hard to believe there is full employment and 0 poverty but great if that is true. I was checking country comparisons for 'livability' for lack of a better term and wasn't expecting what I found. From memory Australia (where I live) ranked 6th? and USA was so far down the ranks (30th?), anyway I will find the site to share here. Naturally it would not show the entire picture but I felt it was interesting info.
The saving rate increased in '09 and onward. That's saying something considering the huge decline in disposable income. We've been paying off debt instead of consuming which is largely why disposable incomes have fallen. In 2010 the absolute level of real personal savings was the highest it's been in 50 years. Excess capacity is also a sort of saving. No country has ever developed economically without an active state.
@royalplaylist102
well, not sure how this relates to what we're talking about, but I agree completely. In fact Kurt Godel proved mathematically that any system of logic cannot be applied to itself without an internal contradiction. Logic is a structure we use to think, but it is really useful. Alot of science and philosophy is actually defining what we mean more precisely.
Your point is specious. The free market exists everywhere. Every country in the world is a hybrid of capitalism (the free market) and socialism. In each and every case, the capitalistic (free market) portions operate to the benefit of everyone in society and the socialistic portions do the exact opposite. That democratic government is more conducive to the greater adoption of the free market than the alternatives mentioned is true but does not alter the basic point.
Even if anecdotal evidence were of any use, the problem (as with recessions/depressions in more market -based economies) was that resources are grossly misallocated and must be redistributed to viable market activities. The existing economic structure was unsustainable (which is why it collapsed). Since then, the reality has been exactly what I described: more growth and prosperity wherever the market is most permitted to operate.
And it bears no relation to southern Europe at all.
23... prime number! all books should be based on prime numbers.
plz protect the earth from greedy wallstreet bankers.
They are easily found. That human beings can disagree about anything is a given - human beings are not perfect. That in no way undermines the concept of free markets.
The notion that Latin America has been laissez faire is too hilarious for words, And in Venezuela under Chavez, after distributing stolen property, their economy stagnated and their economy was SO efficient they failed to distribute food causing widespread hunger - equality in poverty. That's just marvelous!
def agree with you on no bailouts, but bubbles are always bigger the bigger the economy is and the more savings there are. I dunno about the fast thing we did have a 23 year depression at the end of the 19th century after all.
@capncrunch93able absolutely! and don't forget Keynesianism... I wish more people would talk about that.
@royalplaylist102
much of the published research isn't available to everyone. Also its important because I have spent alot of time reading this literature relating to animal behaviour and competition. It's like saying anyone can play the guitar - it's probably true, if everyone practises, but everyone doesn't. I agree that scientific thinking is not the only way to view the world. It's simply a tool. However it is a very good tool.
Collective management is inoffensive. It works because it is VOLUNTARY and no one is required to stay. This allows the market to maintain competition and ensure the efficient allocation of resources.
And private research determined that smoking was bad for you long before gov't (cigs were known as "coffin nails" during the Civil War) and private facilities continually reaffirmed those results all along.
This guy has the best accent ever
How can you obtain FAIR VALUE for accounting without free market?
I actually agree that anarchism may be impossible because of the very "power vacuum" you suggest. That does not preclude a free market as the presence of a state, in and of itself, does not require economic intervention, so the free market can exist completely unimpaired. The tendency of governments to accrue ever greater power to themselves is why all countries have hybrid economies.
Still, influence is not coercion so the question itself is meaningless.
Awesome talk...bringing truth to power...he doesn't hate capitalism...but like Churchill thinks its a better alternative to that other crap...he quotes Gramsci... and is a pessimist of the mind, but an optimist of the will...
As real wages drop demand for debt rises, more concentration of wealth limits the supply of credit driving up interest rates which further reduces net-worth for borrowers while further concentrating wealth. This is offset by more lenders entering the credit market but this reduces real investment which lowers output. Markets will accumulate debt and if they're over leveraged the economy will slow because people are paying off debts and not investing/consuming which increases real debt.
@Dirge987 When can exchange be defined as voluntary? Free will is questioned, we cannot know it exists. What we know is that people often are forced into transactions they do not desire, because they choose between that and dying. What we also know is that the prospect of attaining large sums of money influences people's decisionmaking. Money is definitely one factor that is used to influence public opinion, so is status.
The existence of extended property rights and trade can be traced at least back to areas around the Mediteranian Sea 30K years ago (see, among others, Finley, 1973). Agriculture MAY, in fact, have existed at the time (it is at least 12K) years old but scholars cannot be sure.
And that violence has diminished over time may well be true (I don't necessarily disagree with Pinker's premise) but Pinker's work has been questioned by scholars on the very point I made.
@bdawgy0 Nope, but she is one of my favorite anarchist philosophers, hence her name on the list. Lysander Spooner isn't an ancap either, but again, he's one of my personal favorites.
Well happy Straw Man Festival. I never made any such connection. You (and the rest of the talking point memo crowd) made an issue of the suicide rate at Foxconn. That the rate is lower than in the region, in China as a whole, and in every state in the US calls into serious question the assumption that its a problem. The Foxconn suicides include (and are primarily) cases that take place at the living quarters on campus, not on the job. No data showing lower rates at other companies exists.
Is the interviewer Larry Elliot?
@Dirge987 Money does allow you to influence the outcome of political and societal movements. That is power, whether you like it or not. Also, having something someone needs to live in a market economy can clearly let you command that person, as that person might not have a choice. It might be a matter of survival. Money is much more than a medium of exchange and a holistic approach to analysis is require to understand the magnitude of it. "The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts."
I know others have already pointed out he isn't Chinese: but even if he was, so what? It's not like you aren't allowed to disagree with your own country of origin. Which he actually does, if you read his book: he does criticize South-Korea's economic policies as well.
@Dirge987 Money has many more functions than just being a medium of exchange and a store of value. Money is a social institution, just as taxes are. A nuanced analysis is required to define money. Having more money definitely means you have more power, there's no question about it. Humans also experience class subconsciously, which has alot to do how well you live materially. It's not a zero-sum game, but that doesn't mean the amount of money you command isn't intrinsically connected to power.
If you look at the big picture there is actually the reverse correlation. Wages are a cost of business, profits are what is left AFTER paying wages by definition. As real wages rose in the 50's-1972 the rate of profit declined. Right now as real wages are at 40 year lows, profits are at all time highs. Profits and wages can rise simultaneously only with growth which itself is actually worse when inequality is very high.
@TZMSocialEvolution our technical capabilities have enabled us to envision a new paradigm that is possible to achieve, but is not yet feasible. and at the rate things are going now, i suspect the only way we can usher in a new paradigm of relying on resources rather than purchase power is to wait for the old paradigm to fall completely, to where it drastically affects each social "class". and that is because we as humanity think we will go extinct when things go bad...
@freedomthrough Free will is also a non-sequitur, whether we have it or not is irrelevant. Voluntary transactions are agreed upon by all involved, whether they agree to it by decision or are commanded by chemicals doesn't matter.
"Choose between that and dying". I hear this line a lot, and all I can say is that you are forced to acquire food, shelter, and water, or you die. That is the nature of the universe, but it doesn't justify you forcing someone else to provide it for you.
It actually does if they are not willing to fight back
Okay, I have no problem with what wiki has said or with the premise that the purpose of law is to mediate conflicts between individuals. That it is in the interests of society to mediate such individual conflicts is certainly true. That there is some other societal goal that requires mediation is not. Nor is the state required for individuals to agree to standards of law including the consequences of violations of those laws. Again, the body of work on private law is enormous.
@Dirge987 Money, like i've said, has many more functions than just simplifying exchange. In a modern monetary system (post-Bretton-Woods), taxes are necessary for the currency to retain it's value for one. Money is an institution designed to simplify social obligations in larger societies. That is how money came to and that is what money is today. Money and taxes go hand in hand in many ways.
Tariffs are taxes. When you pass tariffs, you don't need to tax domestic industry and consumers of foreign products get to pay the tariff. Jefferson also favored tariffs. He just wanted the tariff to be at a lower rate than Hamilton.
And one central bank is infinitely better than 50 state banks to help raise and monitor revenue that we need for national security.
Hamilton encouraged foreign trade, he just wanted to industrialize the US too.
This was nothing like British Mercantilism.
I like this man.
@ir192217
"markets will converge" ? i see, is that what's going on with NAFTA? i guess that's a kind of convergence, though a very selective one. the wages of manufacturing workers in america are basically pushed down by competition from mexico, but the wages of high-income professionals like doctors, lawyers and engineers are protected.
Ha's hair is impressive
Simply stating it's absurd does not refute it. I said, that if divide our society into free market and everything else, then it cannot exist separately. Bureaucracy, laws, etc are cohesion. Society exerts power over individuals, family exerts power of it's members. It's always tug of war between individual needs and freedoms and the benefits to the larger society. And sometimes they are at odds. How is that absurd?
Insurance. It's literally piling resources together. It's communal at it's core
@freedomthrough " person of high status also has the means to directly affect political outcomes"
And that is the root of the issue. The ONLY power that has the ability to coercively control the lives of others is the institution with the monopoly on force, aka the state. The only real power is political power. Money is not political power in any sense, and having a lot of money does not grant you any ability to manipulate the lives of others because it is based on voluntarily exchange..
Yes it does
You just don't know how to works it
You can buy politicians or insurgents
@ir192217
i don't know what you mean by "forms" either, or "natural." this is not philosophy, we're not talking about perfect geometry here, we're talking about the real world. do you mean economic models? well, in that case, yes there are different models, and it appears that the nordic and east asian "models" - such as they exist or can be classified that way - are the most dynamic. the US has had quite stagnant growth since the 70's, and the 70's is when market-reforms started, remember?
And as my initial response made clear, I DO look at the individual parts and see what's working and not. As I stated at the outset, demonstrably the free market elements of society work and the socialistic elements do not - in each case and directly to the extent that each alternative has been adopted.
On what basis are utopian free markets "horrible"? I have no idea what Rand's positions are (I am no objectivist) but nothing about free markets condones rapists and murderers.
307 views, 11 thumbs up, no thumbs down, and two comments from people who believe that capitalism works. I don't understand the world anymore.
"The US began to completely abandon the American system in the mid-1970's Huh? When Nixon said we're all Keynesians now! When President Nixon closed the gold window entirely,defaulting on America’s explicit promise of dollar convertibility."
Yes. The American System of Hamilton called for a gold standard, was diametrically opposed to Keynesianism, and favored internally free-markets within America. We need a return to The American System to build new industries!
Collective management is an entirely distinct concept from social ownership. Socialism is, more correctly, an economic system in which the rights of ownership are exercised collectively, usually by the state. There is no social ownership in insurance. Private individuals sell a contractual agreement and then invest the proceeds of those sales to ensure funds are available to meet payment obligations. That risks are not individually managed is irrelevant to the issue.
Making point in his fine humour.
Taxes as a % of GDP haven't varied greatly since the 50's but were slightly higher at slightly less than 20% compared to our current 15%, GDP grew more in that period of course, and inflation changes the real tax burden so nominal rate isn't everything but it was generally more taxed and regulated. corporate tax revenue is half the proportion it was as % GDP.
No. The conditions at Foxconn were better than were available elsewhere at the outset - that is, BEFORE any public outcry. That Apple intervened to cut back hours worked, for example, was met with mixed feelings by workers (as it effectively cut pay as well). Working conditions throughout the world have improved as more capitalism has been embraced but it's not magic. Countries that were anti-capitalistic are going through the same gradual process we did (but faster).
@ChingstahJJ mix of korean and british really, but his korean accent is very prominent
"Influence" is NOT coercion.
And no, rulers and dictators ARE the modern state (evolving about 5,000 years ago. Capitalism dates back 30,000 years.
That we live better now is BECAUSE the free market continues to exist even in the presence of socialism. In fact, capitalism has been directly and solely responsible for the improvement in working conditions, compensation, technology and overall prosperity that has occurred so rapidly over the past three centuries.
Again, from wiki: law is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.
The whole purpose of law is to mediate the conflicts that arise because we (individuals, society, etc), have different understanding, long term and short term goals. All that comes into conflict. And some time in the past we decide that's it's better to have a mediator who has monopoly on coercion, i.e. state
Again, if you can't agree to this, i see no point continuing
Hard to believe he still likes capitalism after dismantling it so handily haha.
Yep, capitalism's flaws are not fixable. It's an inherently unjust and unstable system. We should be talking about the most humane ways of moving beyond capitalism, because it doesn't look like it's gonna last much longer, and what comes after it could be MUCH WORSE than it.
He’s one of the economists who understands the issues, but prefers to ignore the elephant in the room, which is the fundermental cause of such issues.
@@mitchclark1532I don’t think you’re wrong, but what are some fatal flaws of capitalism that make it unfixable?
(Second post)
Saying that the Soviet Union was not communist because it's objectively impossible is circular reasoning. If the Soviet Union was communist it would prove it's possible.
Secondly, state ownership is ownership by a minority, this is not collective ownership.
didn't notice autocorrect was wrong. It was supposed to be coercion.
From wiki: Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.
If you can't see that collective management of risk in insurance is socialistic in nature, i don't see the purpose of this discussion anymore
I thought my communication is bad ...until I saw how Dr. Chang presented this lecture.
Capitalism has many weaknesses but it has a better track record in term of creating wealth comparing to other systems.
In all societies wealth is created through the labor process but in certain Societies only those at the top and keep most of it while those who actually created it get mere crumbs.
First, the example you provide doesn't alter the point that I made. There does not exist an example of an unemployment rate higher than the poverty rate.
Second, Wikipedia agrees with ME that the poverty rate for the elderly "exceeded 50%" - not 70% to 90% but then wiki and politifact are hardly known for reliability while the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the state records (my sources) ARE.
Lastly, that you confuse correlation with causation hardly helps your case.
@Someideasandstuff Read his book Free to Choose I forgot what page. Just read it and after youre finished, you'll be a Capitalist a supporter of the Free-market Capitalist Enterprise.
As for the presence law, unto itself as opposed to economic intervention, that is completely independent of the capitalist/socialist issue (and there is a huge body of work on private law absent the state). It's odd that you mention patent laws as you have chosen an example that many free marketers wholeheartedly disagree with. Now had you said "contract law" you'd have gotten no argument from me.
So, again, the premise that because socialism exists, the free market cannot is absurd.
Of course, the reason that Estonia was able to lead in information technologies is because it created an attractive business environment.
There have been no "social advances" that can be attributed to the EU. The fact is entirely the opposite.
That we cannot agree on definitions may well be true but then, the definition of socialism that includes state ownership of the means of production is universally accepted by economists, political scientists and historians, so...
Actually, I didn't neglect Eastern Europe where Milton's theories have been vindicated in every respect. To the extent that freer markets have been embraced, living standards have improved significantly. Where they have tried to retain greater socialism, greater relative poverty has resulted.
The fact is that there is not a single historical example of unsupervised markets leading to catastrophes (least of all th gov't created boom bust cycle causing the Great Depression and the recent bust).
not taking into consideration that perhaps what we refer to as the "old paradigm" is indeed a paradigm of chaos. the question really isn't about how this system is better than that system, the question should be: how do we move from a paradigm of chaos to a paradigm of coalescence? how do we get people to stop killing other people?
@CytherLynx No, proper research and scientific study is, which changes and adapts to new and better information.
So? The problem is when "human nature" is used as a blanket cop out to avoid addressing the root cause of bad human behavior. Plus, I'd like to think we're a bit more advanced in our mental capabilities than other animals, since we're highly adaptable creatures that can mold and shape our environment.
The scientific method for social concern. That pretty much sums it all up. :)
Do you see what people watch on TV or read in tabloids?
We are barely above animals in the majority
It's true that compared to 100 years ago, we're more regulated, taxed, indebted, with more interventionist governments, but we're also clearly more prosperous than we were 100 years ago. Corporations and finance is less regulated than in the 70's without a doubt. I'm not saying those things can't hurt prosperity, they can, but it really depends on the context and which regulation/tax you're talking about. Private debt caused the crisis, proving the market must be restrained somewhat.
You should look at the suicide rate at Walmarts (1,4 employees), The NHS service in the UK (1,3 employees) the Deutsche Post (0,5 employees) or Indian Rail (1,6 employees). I;m pretty sure that these companies don't have to deal with suicides due to working circumstances. Also they dont ask new workers to sign a non-suicide contract nor do they feel obligated to place safetynets to prevent people from killing themselves.
@capncrunch93able Very well said!
Progress was slow but steady during that period but really took off with the development of extended private property rights and the free flow of capital in the last 300 to 400 years (long after and completely distinct from the rise of the modern state).
The 30,000 figure comes from what has been anthropologically established. That it likely existed millennia earlier is true but I confined myself to the historical record.
And the violence issue is neither relevant nor supported by history.
I heard that argument and I also heard contra argument that on paper the taxes were higher in 50's but in fact NOBODY had to pay them bc of all the deductions.
It makes sense - think about it - nobody would or could pay 90%, it's ridiculous.
So nowadays taxes are actually much higher and consumption is high, bc savings are none ;).
Not gonna argue about efficiency of QE, bc central bank ruling/planning the economy is one big socialist experiment of central bureaucratic planning going wrong.
@Dirge987 Ummm . . . Emma Goldman was an "anarcho-capitalist"? Lolwut?
@Dirge987 And if you don't understand how trees function together and the systems inbetween, you will never understand the forest. Holistic isn't the same as collectivistic, even if some people tend to think so. Holism is the trinity of individual, collective and the systems in between.
the main problem with any ism isn't the ism itself, it's the people who regard them as religions and force their faith upon us all as the solution for everything. Any ism is just an idealized mechanism that may or may not be usefully applied to a particular degree in certain circumstances.
The moral of the story .. don't be a slave to an ism.
There is no head/body connection between the free market and the state/bureaucracy/law. No one is suggesting a "split" of human nature. The free market is entirely consistent with human nature.
That they may always exist side by side may well be true. That the free market is "influenced" by socialism is not. They are mutually exclusive. The issue is, even existing side by side, the free market aspects always have worked and the socialistic aspects always have not.