The propaganda against capitalism has been highly effective. Most people have negative views of capitalism, even in free societies. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual rights. Free people and free trade rise and fall together.
Most “free” economies are actually a mixture of welfare statism and capitalism. The greater the degree of capitalism, the greater the freedom.
The greater the degree of welfare statism, and the centralized power of the state, the less freedom the people have. More “sacrifice” is always required, which means there are more restrictions on how property and resources can be used.
Those “stakeholders” benefiting from the Great Reset are masters at semantic deception and altering the perceived meaning of concepts (i.e. shareholder capitalism, stakeholder capitalism, etc.). These are designed to cast negativity on the concept of capitalism.
Individual rights and capitalism are rooted in a philosophy based on reason and require an active mindset, out of which flows innovation and productivity.
All forms of collectivism are rooted in irrationality and demand a sacrificial mindset to the demands of the ruling elite, which stifles innovation and productivity.
"Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual rights."
But there's also collective rights. Those rights, too, are just as real, or if you like, just as invented. Problem is, the freer capitalism is, the sooner the iron law of oligarchy takes over and wealth/power concentration sends the economy/society on its way to an eventual grinding halt. Don't get me wrong, of course communist vanguards effect that power concentration right out of the gate, while the "leaders" of "democratic" socialists take a bit longer.
"Individual rights and capitalism are rooted in a philosophy based on reason"
So are social rights and socialism, if one is not in denial. Look, the biggest problem is neither capitalists or socialists. It's intelligent psychopaths and sociopaths who concentrate power with no interest in balancing interests for a healthy society. We have yet to find a way to talk about them, never mind deal with them.
By now I actually consider you an expert on these topics. You should be the one in every talk show. Not these reactionary conservative TikTok girls we are getting.
Hmm I do think Capitalism is better, though I'm beginning to question it (not in favour of leftist nonsense). But rather in favour of Nationalisme.
The trouble is Capitalists have overworked the land in North-America, and in other places I just wonder about it. I do think we must question everything in the French style this is why I question.
Nationalisme not in the sense of Socialist nonsense, but rather that goods and local commodities from the locality ought to be favoured but also local workers. You should favour local folks and train local folks over anyone else. The French should put the French first above all others at all times. Same for Americans, Irish and so on.
What we need is the 19th century business model, and lack of oversight that America & Britain & France had much of the time throughout that century as it meant that folks could live their lives in peace, there was national cohesiveness and none of the globalist nonsense.
Capitalism has raised the standards of living for more people than any other economic system. The difficulty, as I see it, is finding a way to inhibit or stop predatory psychopaths from unfairly benefiting from working in a capitalist system at others' expense. These people want everything for themselves and couldn't care less whom they destroy in their efforts to make sure we own nothing (and rent everything from them) so we can be happy.
With the social credit system and the cbdc's come the perfect tools to impose socialism over everyone belonging to the 99%. The jibjab was the trojan horse to implement a register of the "participants" of this new order.
Hi Lily, hi everyone. You make a good case Lily, for the more extreme brands of socialism and capitalism. I live in a small country which, when I was leaving home in the 70s, had a very enjoyable system which I think incorporated the best of both. It was low-stress, and there was not a lot of disposable income for almost everyone, but it was by no means plagued by lack of initiative and ingenuity. People had more time for each other. We had a pretty good education system, where anyone could do three years at university virtually free. We had world class medical services, for the time. We paid for these, out of our taxes on productive work. In 1975 David Rockefeller Jnr visited my country and spent 3 days with our newly elected Prime Minister. He "persuaded" our new PM to "borrow" money, to build big roads, and buy big trucks which needed to run 24/7 to keep up payments to the bank. From that time on, successive governments, reddish and bluish both, started selling off our post office, electricity, media, phone network, it's practically all gone now, and to be honest, our government is scratching to justify its own existence. The infrastructure is largely owned by anonymous offshore "investors" aka predatory corporations. What we have learned is that obscene wealth is dangerous. Any system that is looking to last very long has to guard very well against too much power being concentrated in too few hands. Wealth is wonderful, but too much is deadly, ask King Midas. We now have schools borrowing money, student loans with usurious interest, the medical industry is in constant crisis, doctors are coming out of med school all primed for eugenicism. It's been my misfortune to meet some who bought into that.
Another important thing is to take responsibility. History shows that it never ends well for those who delegate their power away. At a certain age, around seven, kids should start practising working for consensus in groups. Only delegate carefully and keep a close eye on the delegates. Nobody who wants power should ever be allowed to get it. This is not difficult to arrange. All the best, Steve
I have some disagreements with this essay. I mean, the elite capitalists do seek state favoritism, but the favoritism amounts to socialism. For example, the too big to fail bailout in 2008. If the financial system fell apart, it would damage a lot of people, but, the big wigs would fall hard. In real capitalism, the house of cards would collapse, and some enterprising capitalist would buy up the distressed assets for a pittance and make some profit. Likewise, the airlines have been bailed out in 2001 and 2020. This isn't an insurance policy that they pay into. The government just hands them bailout money. In real capitalism, they would go under, and someone with the wealth would buy up the planes and figure out a way to get them into the air.
Both capitalism and socialism are prone to corruption. In fact, there are no institutions in the world which are free from corruption.
Most of the people I have met in my life don't really think much, and don't think much about economic systems. The allure of either system is based on emotional states which were developed in childhood. In the minds of many, "capitalism" = "wealthy" = corrupt/unfair/criminal. "socialism" = punishment of the rich, and enforcement of "economic fairness". These views are held in the concrete of learned helplessness. Thus, there is a craving for a savior of some sort to "set things right". Does the phrase "someone ought to do something..." sound familiar? The idol of government is very attractive to those infected by helplessness.
I was a socialist until I started working and had the opportunity to learn morality and ethics.
That has already been realized in large part in the West also, as most of the profitable business are oligonopolized or monopolized and have the main influence on the decision making in societies.
" This means they seek to monopolize profit-oriented production by eliminating the property rights of others while simultaneously reducing or eliminating their own risk. (Consider the example of China.)
Indeed, the entire goal of what is known as the Great Reset is the exact reversal of the “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor” formula. The Great Reset represents an attempt by a protected class of elite capitalists to form cartels and seek state favoritism, establishing"
"The phrase 'socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor' is based on the deeply flawed leftist belief that socialism is obviously beneficial for those living within it, a veritable paradise, while capitalism is seen as a ruthless, dog-eat-dog 'anarchy' where individuals battle over scraps, leading many to inevitable starvation."
I don't think so. This particular phrase points to the corrupt carve-outs in the law made to protect favored powerful cronies from the consequences of their risky behavior, corruption that has snowballed in recent decades, especially during/since 2008+ GFC and 2020+ COVID -- as you've pointed out in your posts. Accordingly, small-scale capitalists and right-wingers are sounding the alarm on this, just as as leftists do.
When Ghandi landed in Britain for the first time, a reporter asked him "What do you think of British civilization, Mr. Ghandi"? Ghandi, intending to point out what a patronizing question it was, said "I think it would be a good idea"!
This is always what comes to my mind when people talk as if we have a capitalist economy. Just as the British weren't as civilized as they thought, we haven't had capitalism since before the twentieth century.
The essential feature of capitalism is competition in the market. By 1898 (if memory serves) just 2 people owned 98% of the railways in the US. It wasn't ownership of oil that gave Rockefeller his monopolistic control, but ownership of the DISTRIBUTION of oil. That - the control on ENERGY EXPENDITURE is what determined the growth or otherwise of economies. (Read John Perkins's "Confessions..." for simple insight into this).
The Corporation is the legal device that has given power to the these thugs. That's called fascism! We've had fascism, not capitalism for well over a century.
In the UK, the body responsible for avoiding the emergence of cartels and oligopolies - The Monopolies and Mergers Commission - failed completely and was rebranded. It did what's characteristic of law enforcement everywhere - it was pendantic in enforcing it for small businesses whilst ignoring the elephants in the business room.
When people learn enough about WW2 to comment that "the Germans may have lost, but the Nazis won", this, the fascists in power (Dulles et al.) in the US and elsewhere is what they are seeing.
Capitalism? I think it would be a good idea to try it!
Capitalism, despite its faults creates wealth.
Socialism destroys wealth except for those in control.
The propaganda against capitalism has been highly effective. Most people have negative views of capitalism, even in free societies. Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual rights. Free people and free trade rise and fall together.
Most “free” economies are actually a mixture of welfare statism and capitalism. The greater the degree of capitalism, the greater the freedom.
The greater the degree of welfare statism, and the centralized power of the state, the less freedom the people have. More “sacrifice” is always required, which means there are more restrictions on how property and resources can be used.
Those “stakeholders” benefiting from the Great Reset are masters at semantic deception and altering the perceived meaning of concepts (i.e. shareholder capitalism, stakeholder capitalism, etc.). These are designed to cast negativity on the concept of capitalism.
Individual rights and capitalism are rooted in a philosophy based on reason and require an active mindset, out of which flows innovation and productivity.
All forms of collectivism are rooted in irrationality and demand a sacrificial mindset to the demands of the ruling elite, which stifles innovation and productivity.
Thanks for another great article.
"Capitalism is the only economic system compatible with individual rights."
But there's also collective rights. Those rights, too, are just as real, or if you like, just as invented. Problem is, the freer capitalism is, the sooner the iron law of oligarchy takes over and wealth/power concentration sends the economy/society on its way to an eventual grinding halt. Don't get me wrong, of course communist vanguards effect that power concentration right out of the gate, while the "leaders" of "democratic" socialists take a bit longer.
"Individual rights and capitalism are rooted in a philosophy based on reason"
So are social rights and socialism, if one is not in denial. Look, the biggest problem is neither capitalists or socialists. It's intelligent psychopaths and sociopaths who concentrate power with no interest in balancing interests for a healthy society. We have yet to find a way to talk about them, never mind deal with them.
By now I actually consider you an expert on these topics. You should be the one in every talk show. Not these reactionary conservative TikTok girls we are getting.
Spot on!
As Andrew Wilkow says...”socialism is for the people, not the socialist”.
Yep, that explains the Great Reset in less then 5 minutes.
Hmm I do think Capitalism is better, though I'm beginning to question it (not in favour of leftist nonsense). But rather in favour of Nationalisme.
The trouble is Capitalists have overworked the land in North-America, and in other places I just wonder about it. I do think we must question everything in the French style this is why I question.
Nationalisme not in the sense of Socialist nonsense, but rather that goods and local commodities from the locality ought to be favoured but also local workers. You should favour local folks and train local folks over anyone else. The French should put the French first above all others at all times. Same for Americans, Irish and so on.
What we need is the 19th century business model, and lack of oversight that America & Britain & France had much of the time throughout that century as it meant that folks could live their lives in peace, there was national cohesiveness and none of the globalist nonsense.
It appears that the communists/socialists excelled in overworking, even destroying their lands, much more than the capitalists. Otherwise, I agree!
Good point, I do agree. Better capitalism than communism.
Capitalism has raised the standards of living for more people than any other economic system. The difficulty, as I see it, is finding a way to inhibit or stop predatory psychopaths from unfairly benefiting from working in a capitalist system at others' expense. These people want everything for themselves and couldn't care less whom they destroy in their efforts to make sure we own nothing (and rent everything from them) so we can be happy.
With the social credit system and the cbdc's come the perfect tools to impose socialism over everyone belonging to the 99%. The jibjab was the trojan horse to implement a register of the "participants" of this new order.
Excellent.
The outcome for the proponents of The Great Reset is a form of Facism (in its technical sense).
Hi Lily, hi everyone. You make a good case Lily, for the more extreme brands of socialism and capitalism. I live in a small country which, when I was leaving home in the 70s, had a very enjoyable system which I think incorporated the best of both. It was low-stress, and there was not a lot of disposable income for almost everyone, but it was by no means plagued by lack of initiative and ingenuity. People had more time for each other. We had a pretty good education system, where anyone could do three years at university virtually free. We had world class medical services, for the time. We paid for these, out of our taxes on productive work. In 1975 David Rockefeller Jnr visited my country and spent 3 days with our newly elected Prime Minister. He "persuaded" our new PM to "borrow" money, to build big roads, and buy big trucks which needed to run 24/7 to keep up payments to the bank. From that time on, successive governments, reddish and bluish both, started selling off our post office, electricity, media, phone network, it's practically all gone now, and to be honest, our government is scratching to justify its own existence. The infrastructure is largely owned by anonymous offshore "investors" aka predatory corporations. What we have learned is that obscene wealth is dangerous. Any system that is looking to last very long has to guard very well against too much power being concentrated in too few hands. Wealth is wonderful, but too much is deadly, ask King Midas. We now have schools borrowing money, student loans with usurious interest, the medical industry is in constant crisis, doctors are coming out of med school all primed for eugenicism. It's been my misfortune to meet some who bought into that.
Another important thing is to take responsibility. History shows that it never ends well for those who delegate their power away. At a certain age, around seven, kids should start practising working for consensus in groups. Only delegate carefully and keep a close eye on the delegates. Nobody who wants power should ever be allowed to get it. This is not difficult to arrange. All the best, Steve
may I ask in which country?
besides that, I can confirm what you said as I have similar experiences from our country.
I have some disagreements with this essay. I mean, the elite capitalists do seek state favoritism, but the favoritism amounts to socialism. For example, the too big to fail bailout in 2008. If the financial system fell apart, it would damage a lot of people, but, the big wigs would fall hard. In real capitalism, the house of cards would collapse, and some enterprising capitalist would buy up the distressed assets for a pittance and make some profit. Likewise, the airlines have been bailed out in 2001 and 2020. This isn't an insurance policy that they pay into. The government just hands them bailout money. In real capitalism, they would go under, and someone with the wealth would buy up the planes and figure out a way to get them into the air.
Both capitalism and socialism are prone to corruption. In fact, there are no institutions in the world which are free from corruption.
Most of the people I have met in my life don't really think much, and don't think much about economic systems. The allure of either system is based on emotional states which were developed in childhood. In the minds of many, "capitalism" = "wealthy" = corrupt/unfair/criminal. "socialism" = punishment of the rich, and enforcement of "economic fairness". These views are held in the concrete of learned helplessness. Thus, there is a craving for a savior of some sort to "set things right". Does the phrase "someone ought to do something..." sound familiar? The idol of government is very attractive to those infected by helplessness.
I was a socialist until I started working and had the opportunity to learn morality and ethics.
"Both capitalism and socialism are prone to corruption. In fact, there are no institutions in the world which are free from corruption."
Agreed. That's the 'iron law of oligarchy' at work (see Robert Michels).
That has already been realized in large part in the West also, as most of the profitable business are oligonopolized or monopolized and have the main influence on the decision making in societies.
" This means they seek to monopolize profit-oriented production by eliminating the property rights of others while simultaneously reducing or eliminating their own risk. (Consider the example of China.)
Indeed, the entire goal of what is known as the Great Reset is the exact reversal of the “socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor” formula. The Great Reset represents an attempt by a protected class of elite capitalists to form cartels and seek state favoritism, establishing"
"The phrase 'socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor' is based on the deeply flawed leftist belief that socialism is obviously beneficial for those living within it, a veritable paradise, while capitalism is seen as a ruthless, dog-eat-dog 'anarchy' where individuals battle over scraps, leading many to inevitable starvation."
I don't think so. This particular phrase points to the corrupt carve-outs in the law made to protect favored powerful cronies from the consequences of their risky behavior, corruption that has snowballed in recent decades, especially during/since 2008+ GFC and 2020+ COVID -- as you've pointed out in your posts. Accordingly, small-scale capitalists and right-wingers are sounding the alarm on this, just as as leftists do.
When Ghandi landed in Britain for the first time, a reporter asked him "What do you think of British civilization, Mr. Ghandi"? Ghandi, intending to point out what a patronizing question it was, said "I think it would be a good idea"!
This is always what comes to my mind when people talk as if we have a capitalist economy. Just as the British weren't as civilized as they thought, we haven't had capitalism since before the twentieth century.
The essential feature of capitalism is competition in the market. By 1898 (if memory serves) just 2 people owned 98% of the railways in the US. It wasn't ownership of oil that gave Rockefeller his monopolistic control, but ownership of the DISTRIBUTION of oil. That - the control on ENERGY EXPENDITURE is what determined the growth or otherwise of economies. (Read John Perkins's "Confessions..." for simple insight into this).
The Corporation is the legal device that has given power to the these thugs. That's called fascism! We've had fascism, not capitalism for well over a century.
In the UK, the body responsible for avoiding the emergence of cartels and oligopolies - The Monopolies and Mergers Commission - failed completely and was rebranded. It did what's characteristic of law enforcement everywhere - it was pendantic in enforcing it for small businesses whilst ignoring the elephants in the business room.
When people learn enough about WW2 to comment that "the Germans may have lost, but the Nazis won", this, the fascists in power (Dulles et al.) in the US and elsewhere is what they are seeing.
Capitalism? I think it would be a good idea to try it!