Another excellent article. (I particularly liked the nirvana fallacy example). Of late, as objections rise in my mind while reading your blog, you answer them in the next sentence, in this case, where Dutton uses the law and government to his own ends.
I've heard, time and again, from people who think that rent-seeking is part of capitalism. Rent-seekers are supposed to be told "no" by a government serving its proper role in a capitalistic society. When rent-seekers are granted their desires, that is a corruption of the system, and a step away from its ideal.
The ideal can never be achieved, but we see time and again how moving closer to it produces better results than walking back from it.
Individual actors in a capitalist system are not necessarily going to be fans of it. There's more personal utility in cronyism than in capitalism. If you can tip the playing field your way, you've more incentive to do that than to simply accept its being level. This is the crucial difference between being pro-business and pro-market.
Capitalism works best when it is dealing with something which can turn a profit. The problem comes when making a profit can deny people access to vital goods and services. There's also the problem when that profit becomes the only measure for determining success or failure. That encourages unethical behavior which in turn discredits capitalism. As I've said before, capitalism must exist within a moral dimension. Not every area of human endeavor is capable of being addressed by capitalism.
Your last sentence is correct as a generality, but it is also binary. What's the alternative, and will it produce better results?
Beyond that, who says profit is the only measure for success or failure? Any individual can set his own metrics for determining his own success, and if one of those metrics is having the means to help others with charity, that falls well within the system.
Countless acts of philanthropy have occurred across history by people who've lived capitalistic lives.
Great article, but I'm going to nitpick over the term "Capitalism". The system we espouse should be called "Free Enterprise", which captures its primary essence: freedom! It has nothing to do with having or not having "capital". Even socialist, fascist, and despotic governments have "capital". The very term was invented by Karl Marx - not exactly a historic figure whose writings we should revere.
Milton Friedman used capitalism and free enterprise interchangeably. And, if we relinquish the word, we grant its enemies free rein to corrupt the colloquial understanding of it. Don't yield an inch on such points of principle.
I quit after the first episode of Yellowstone, was not impressed. Seemed like another “Dallas” type soap opera with all the stock characters - stubborn patriarch, rebellious son, “loose” daughter, etc.
"Capitalism sucks!" to young people who've never participated in the productive economy, and aged-out hippies who lived a life avoiding productive work. And yet every day, 230 million Americans get out of bed and go to work, generally happy with their productive vocation. It's not a "white grievance" to think one SHOULD have a vocation, work, while 100 million Americans sit on the sidelines and let the overweening government pay them not to. We have around 17 million Americans age 25-54 not working and not looking for work, by choice. This is rent-seeking behavior as well.
Capitalism hasn't failed when you pay people not to work - or when you enshackle business with regulations and cronyism. It fails because the government gets "involved.
The lazy, who see in whatever form of collectivism the promise to get more and work less.
The naive, who think that the world could run oh-so-much-better if a few smart people were in charge of everything and everyone just agreed to work for the collective.
The egotistical, who think they know better than everyone else.
Another excellent article. (I particularly liked the nirvana fallacy example). Of late, as objections rise in my mind while reading your blog, you answer them in the next sentence, in this case, where Dutton uses the law and government to his own ends.
I've heard, time and again, from people who think that rent-seeking is part of capitalism. Rent-seekers are supposed to be told "no" by a government serving its proper role in a capitalistic society. When rent-seekers are granted their desires, that is a corruption of the system, and a step away from its ideal.
The ideal can never be achieved, but we see time and again how moving closer to it produces better results than walking back from it.
Individual actors in a capitalist system are not necessarily going to be fans of it. There's more personal utility in cronyism than in capitalism. If you can tip the playing field your way, you've more incentive to do that than to simply accept its being level. This is the crucial difference between being pro-business and pro-market.
Capitalism works best when it is dealing with something which can turn a profit. The problem comes when making a profit can deny people access to vital goods and services. There's also the problem when that profit becomes the only measure for determining success or failure. That encourages unethical behavior which in turn discredits capitalism. As I've said before, capitalism must exist within a moral dimension. Not every area of human endeavor is capable of being addressed by capitalism.
Your last sentence is correct as a generality, but it is also binary. What's the alternative, and will it produce better results?
Beyond that, who says profit is the only measure for success or failure? Any individual can set his own metrics for determining his own success, and if one of those metrics is having the means to help others with charity, that falls well within the system.
Countless acts of philanthropy have occurred across history by people who've lived capitalistic lives.
Great article, but I'm going to nitpick over the term "Capitalism". The system we espouse should be called "Free Enterprise", which captures its primary essence: freedom! It has nothing to do with having or not having "capital". Even socialist, fascist, and despotic governments have "capital". The very term was invented by Karl Marx - not exactly a historic figure whose writings we should revere.
Milton Friedman used capitalism and free enterprise interchangeably. And, if we relinquish the word, we grant its enemies free rein to corrupt the colloquial understanding of it. Don't yield an inch on such points of principle.
Amen!
I quit after the first episode of Yellowstone, was not impressed. Seemed like another “Dallas” type soap opera with all the stock characters - stubborn patriarch, rebellious son, “loose” daughter, etc.
"Capitalism sucks!" to young people who've never participated in the productive economy, and aged-out hippies who lived a life avoiding productive work. And yet every day, 230 million Americans get out of bed and go to work, generally happy with their productive vocation. It's not a "white grievance" to think one SHOULD have a vocation, work, while 100 million Americans sit on the sidelines and let the overweening government pay them not to. We have around 17 million Americans age 25-54 not working and not looking for work, by choice. This is rent-seeking behavior as well.
Capitalism hasn't failed when you pay people not to work - or when you enshackle business with regulations and cronyism. It fails because the government gets "involved.
I see three types of people who decry capitalism.
The lazy, who see in whatever form of collectivism the promise to get more and work less.
The naive, who think that the world could run oh-so-much-better if a few smart people were in charge of everything and everyone just agreed to work for the collective.
The egotistical, who think they know better than everyone else.
Lot of overlap in that Venn diagram!
Oh, for sure. Especially given how good people are at convincing themselves of bullshit they want to be true.