capitalism

A system of greedy exploiters abusing the police state, or the idea of ​​prosperity?

Enjoy capitalism!
Enjoy capitalism!

9 out of 10 great café intellectuals blame capitalism for the current crisis. The tenth is me (I'm currently drinking my cappuccino).

I claim that the nine intellectuals are wrong. I don't take that greedy capitalists, synonymous with the hell of the devils of today, made fraud. In my opinion, however, the frauds themselves were the crisis, so the roots precede it.

But the main and foremost thing is that the 9 intellectuals do not know what capitalism is. I decided to explain it to them.

What is capitalism like?

I dont know at all. I do not know the answer to this question, especially since capitalism is as we make it.

Capitalism calmly includes socialism. It is no problem for a community to buy land and live in it in "its little socialism" - it is a voluntary, free arrangement.

Capitalism is free market system.

The free market is system of free cooperation, cooperation.

The market is not a UFO. There is no market if there are no people, but at the same time the market as such does not constitute an individual in itself. However, the moment I encounter another person, interpersonal interaction, cooperation and a market is created. The market outputs are outputs of human behavior.

So when we say that 'the market is harmful', it means that 'people are harming'. When we say that the market needs to be regulated, we say that "human action is detrimental" - that people need some elite authority to tell them what, when and how to do it.

Proponents of market regulation are, in fact, supporters of the harshest form of totalitarianism.

The equivalent of the word "market" is thus "human cooperation". Now the arguments of the "regulators" are different: "human cooperation" needs to be curtailed because the outputs of "human cooperation" are incorrect and need to be corrected. Therefore, something needs to be commanded for "human cooperation."

In practice, it seems that someone in Prague determines the form of employment contracts, for example in Ostrava, without having any relationship with the employer or employee.

The question arises: for whom are the outcomes of human cooperation wrong? Probably not for the cooperating parties, otherwise they would not cooperate. The answer is simple: bad is only from the point of view of the regulator. The regulator is usually a state (in some form). It is in the interest of the state (politicians) to collect as much money as possible from taxes.

Thus, according to the state, any result of human cooperation that would ensure a reduced volume of taxes collected is bad and needs to be regulated. In the interest of the state, the regulator, the possibility of human cooperation is as limited as possible. The interest of any regulator is thus to "combat capitalism" - that is, the interest of the regulator is that rigid totalitarianism over human actions and decisions.

Regulators do not belong to capitalism. What does it mean? I do not see capitalism anywhere in Europe and the USA. It is therefore a colossal mistake to think that capitalism is the culprit of the crisis and that the current crisis is the crisis of capitalism. Let's call the current system anyway, but certainly not capitalism, because the present is simply not.

Equation with positive sum

The market system differs from the systems of various forms of state interventionism in that capitalism is an equation with a positive sum. In the capitalist market system, everyone is allowed to specialize comparatively (specialize in what the individual can do best) and use their human qualities for any form of self-satisfaction and self-realization. Everyone gains, if it weren't for that, people wouldn't act, they wouldn't change, they wouldn't live.

So if you want to know what capitalism is, the answer is simple: capitalism, it is possibilities, freedom and voluntariness. Everyone has the opportunity to achieve what they want, but it is everyone's voluntary decision whether to choose these options freely. As a result, everything is the result of a simple calculation of subjective costs with revenues. Nothing more, nothing less.

PS: Note that the regulator or supporter of regulation when defending regulations automatically assumes that human behavior (including your behavior) is a priori wrong. They thus hold the presumption of guilt.

0 comments

  1. ad 1 - I do not dispute that the market is also the result of the division of labor. That's why I'm talking about the company.

    An enterprise in any "phase" is a centrally managed unit. After all, whether I go to work when I get up is always my purely voluntary decision. The only one who can de facto use coercion is the state today.

    And yes, I tell my bosses very often that they "don't run it all themselves" and they are well aware of that. They know that it is up to them whether they want me at work and at the same time it is up to me whether I will come to them.

    Do you know the style of work in IT companies such as Google or Facebook?

    Otherwise, yes, contradict that definition of enterprise. I am a self-employed person who wants to make cars. What is cheaper - to set up a company and bear the costs of its management, or to look for all the necessary fields (such as car painters, hall cleaners, etc.) for each individual exchange act separately on the market? Will a business be established or not?

    GDP is a completely misguided macroeconomic variable.

    Otherwise it is not worth commenting on. You negate with learned phrases and out of context with torn definitions. Also try to ask why.

    You are building on an economy that was refuted more than a hundred years ago.

  2. Dear Mr. Kubec, here are some remarks on your contribution No.4
    ad1 I say: The market is the result of a society-wide division of labor.
    you say: 1) The company is NOT a centrally controlled island in the market!
    It has nothing to do with it at all.
    The company in the production phase is a centrally controlled unit. It produces its own goods in competition with the same manufacturers. If this were not true, then there would be no patents, licenses, industrial designs and other intangible assets of the company, which are prohibited to copy without permission. You do not understand what production and the market are. Production is an activity that creates values ​​that the market either accepts or does not accept in the process of exchange. So two mutually separate phases.
    You have never painted Leontiev's matrix of production and consumption. If you knew this issue, then you would have to know that all subjects active in the national economy are interconnected by the social division of labor. The company is very well and necessarily a centrally managed NH unit. If you work, go tell your boss that he doesn't run his own department or the company himself. So Van just laughs.
    What is he responsible for and also paid for?

    ad 2 No need to comment, it is a misguided definition of a company.

    ad3 NH is podik. If it were not for it, it would not have reported GDP. The trade balance expresses the ratio of own production intended for export and the total value of imports.

    Otherwise it is not worth commenting on. You negate with learned phrases and out of context with torn definitions. Also try to ask why.

  3. "Once upon a time, it was obvious that he could also recover debts from the debtor's descendants or neighbors."

    it was not obvious, it was often caused by the "demilitarization" of subjects, again a form of organized violence

    in this is the instructive Wild West and the history of firearms

  4. I highly recommend Mr. Cactus to find out the history of human rights and Western civilization (its dark times and times of prosperity) and only then come up with his own definitions and play with words.

    find out something about the history of slavery and you will see that it is not a simple matter, there is a need for strong state intervention, nobility, war or other forms of ORGANIZED violence and public support (the free part - and it is not so obvious, people are selfish but also compassionate)

  5. re: cacti
    Slavery (such as antiquity or the early USA) is a very complex and uneconomical system that distorts not only the economy (from a general point of view, the slave can of course see it differently in the short term) but also morality.

    in any case, it is completely inappropriate for people, it definitely destroys a slave, but as a result also a slave

    the difference between equal property and equal rights is that people have agreed that man is not property… in the field of western civilization it is related to Christian morality
    however, as I wrote, it is also a much more natural state, because in order to introduce slavery, you have to convince the public that some people can become property (I assume that those concerned will protest…)

    PS: there are various forms of slavery, for example, the Hebrews had a patriarchal system where the lord did not have the life of a slave and there were other reliefs jsme but we did not talk about it

    such a system was probably closest to what you proposed as a "trade" with freedom, or as a debt service with a creditor, although of course there were also slaves of war

    PPS: you have a very naive idea of ​​the state, the state is neither satan nor savior, the state is simply a form of organization of society and basically not even necessary, communities up to a certain size and commitment, or solitary societies do quite well without it

  6. Cactus, to the problem you point out in the last comment: contractual freedom is, of course, complete, but children are not automatically liable for their parents' debts.

  7. 3,14ranha, what is "natural" on equal rights? So why not agree on equal assets? Isn't the equality of civil rights a distortion of the market? After all, man is limited by society. He must not trade in his personal freedom, he must not guarantee it, he must not give it up. The rights of the creditor are limited. It used to be a matter of course that he could also recover debts from the debtor's descendants or neighbors. It was "natural", it was without regulation, and it guaranteed the greatest freedom. But only for the most successful. Capitalism thus presupposes extensive regulation enforced and enforced by the state (which must have the power to do so), otherwise it is not capitalism, but a feudal or slave system.

  8. re: cacti

    by the way, free competition and capitalism itself tend to be ecological, economical, and rapidly developing (which is very important given the state of the planet)

    the second thing is whether there is such a system (NOT)
    the west is so social and falsely solidarity (falsely, because out of someone's pocket and INEFFICIENTLY) that it is ugly and we can expect that we may face up to a quarter of a century of stagnation and debt relief (and at best!)

    I hope for a miracle, but any attempt to destroy the remnants of free competition can be fatal, you don't have to go deep into history to think of this…

    I must point out that we are relatively rich (compared to the world) and even possible stagnation would not automatically mean famine and destruction of society (see Japan)

  9. re: cacti
    but this is just your illusion, I do not want to argue about words, but the market economy and "capitalism" are more or less the most natural state, and if we agree on certain equal rights, it is the most suitable environment for man (of course man is a creature seeking - therefore states are , and that is why it is traded - instead of living like a robinson)

    market competition is fragile, but it does not lead to permanent distortion - every complex system tends to self-destruction - slavery, fascism - these systems are afraid of every blade of grass, so they are so aggressive and therefore have a livestock life (historically, their victims are this crash) may not live to see)

    PS: you have to answer whether people are free or not, if people are sheep, then communism or feudalism is good for them, if you believe that people are free at the core (and they are - despite intrusive advertising, susceptibility to evil, instincts and emotions …) Then for them capitalism is the smallest evil which guarantees that even though it may not prevent some evil, it also does not prevent the "doing" of good! (and that's more important to me)

  10. Janzl, I will be ironic, disgusting and primitive, but I will use M. Rothbard's paraphrases: Your articles are so bad that they fall into the category of non-articles. You write absolute nonsense.

    1) The company is NOT a centrally managed island in the market!
    2) The enterprise IS INCURRED BY VOLUNTARY COOPERATION, where THE COST OF MANAGEMENT is lower than the COST OF TRANSACTION. Your theory of business is completely wrong and misleading, invalid. So everything you derive from it does not apply.
    3) The national economy is not an enterprise. A nation does not act, it does not have an "economy", it is the action of individuals who have subjective preferences that change differently for everyone in time in the matter of that individual event.

    Because collective entities do not act, they do not have "benefits" or "goals." Only the individual who acts always has the benefit or goal. Thus, the collective interest does not exist, so it cannot take precedence over the interest of the individual. The effort to promote the interest of one individual over the interest of another individual is just hidden under the collective interest.

    4) You completely ignore that the only evaluator is an individual, a person, the value is subjective and NOT TRANSFERABLE AMONG INDIVIDUALS (1 "unit" of the value of producer A in producer B can mean something completely different, or nothing).

    5) Because you ignore individual actions, your understanding of your own benefit is wrong. "Benefit" is individual and can easily take the form of altruism.

    Your conclusions are not valid, I will not bother with the rest. Or maybe yes, but I'll be in the mood for that.

  11. The market is the result of a society-wide division of labor. You're not talking about that. If you work somewhere, then you need to know that every business is a strictly, centrally managed system in which it is not advisable to criticize the boss, often not even to take your own initiative. The national economy is also such an enterprise in the international arena. You forget that the basic driving force in a market unregulated economy is self-interest. This is the reason for the need for regulation. Here's proof.
    http://premysljankroupa.blog.idnes.cz/c/103266/Kapital-je-dobry-sluha-ale-zly-pan-Dil-II.html#t2
    Also read the following article, there is a sequel.

  12. This is the utopia you write.
    Capitalism is based primarily on private property. Respect for this property is imposed on everyone. And then on a number of other rules that are also imposed on everyone. For example, civil equality or the inalienability (or "voluntary") of many rights. Without state regulation, there would be no such thing, a completely free market would necessarily lead to slavery and feudalism. Every company regulates, sets its own rules. Just somewhere they are dictated by a bourgeois-democratic state, which must have the strength and therefore money from taxes, somewhere they are dictated by the most powerful individual. He has money, for example, from firing. Without the authority of the state, it is disadvantageous for such a powerful individual to offer goods or services on the market when he can assert his interests by force.

Comments are off.