Correct. Only capitalism and free markets can create wealth. And wealth is what solves problems in society. Unfortunately most people think the solution is just to steal from productive people. Very sad.
“Only capitalism and free markets can create wealth” is a false statement.
It is also irrelevant to the discussion, because we don’t live in a black and white world where the choice is between 100% capitalism or 100% socialism.
Pretending that America is 100% capitalist, or pretending that America’s problems are because we aren’t 100% capitalism, is a losing proposition.
I never said that it’s either 100% capitalist or socialist . I’m saying that’s the solution to our problems is capitalism. Because socialism is just a snake eating itself. You redistribute wealth and punish productive people in the process using aggressive state force. Don’t use violence to achieve your goals. Voluntary solutions only.
Capitalism is the system that creates wealth and wealth is what solves problems in society.
And yes every government regulation necessarily destroys wealth in one way or another. Government intervention requires authoritarian force on peaceful people. It’s never justified as it violates people’s freedom to freely exchange with others in the market.
Your first assertion, that “Capitalism is the system that creates wealth” is incorrect. Capitalism is a system for governing economic activity. It has nothing to do with wealth creation.
Wealth is created by activities, not systems. An example: I chop down a tree. I cut that tree into logs. I use those logs to build a cabin. Wealth has been created by me turning raw inputs (the tree) into an output that is more useful to society (the log cabin). Notice how capitalism never entered the picture in this situation?
Lets re-use the following example, but this time the state consists of one single ruler and everyone else is a slave to that ruler. Everything is owned by that ruler. I chop down the tree, cut the logs, bla bla, cabin is built. Wealth is created, but if everyone is a slave to one guy then we are clearly not working within a capitalist framework. So I hope we can agree at this point that capitalism has nothing to do with wealth creation is not the only way to create wealth.
Another assertion of yours, that government regulation inevitably destroys wealth, is also very interesting. And concerning.
You say that regulation is never justified. So, I presume then that you are okay with someone selling you a house claiming it to be made of oak, but it’s really made of balsa wood? I presume you are okay with a factory owner dumping radioactive sludge into the water supply that you drink? I presume that you are okay with your neighbor breaking into your balsa house and killing your family?
Those things are all prohibited by government regulation, and I would be very quick to assert that all of those regulations preserve wealth rather than destroy it. Sure, the factory owner loses out because now he has to dispose of his waste properly. The sleazy house builder loses out because he has to pay for proper materials. Your neighbor loses out because he can’t kill you and steal all your shit. But COLLECTIVELY, society benefits.
I am very curious to hear your rebuttal.
Edit: crossed out some incorrect statements of mine.
Alright so it first needs to be understood that rights do not come from government. So why is it the case that government regulation is unnecessary? Well, in a free society, every person has the right to defend their own property rights. So if someone dumps radioactive sludge into some water supply that I use, well, they violated my property rights because that is my water supply and therefore I am justified in using force to defend myself and my property.
A free society runs on the non-aggression principle. Basically, don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff. Everyone is a self-owner of their own bodies, so no one has the right to use aggression on others. And property is claimed through homesteading and the first comer principle. The first-comer to any given resource in nature is the rightful owner, as any late comer trying to claim ownership is creating a conflict over scarce resources. And people can trade with others to exchange resources. There’s a lot more to it than just that, but this is the basic principles to how this society is ordered.
Ah, an anarcho-capitalist in the wild. I think it suffices to say that we have radically different beliefs about the nature and purpose of government, society, economics, etc.
I will leave you with one question:
If you and the factory owner disagree about whether he polluted your water, who determines which of you is entitled to use force against the other?
You would have private courts settle these cases. Courts are funded privately and ones who rule more fairly in general are the ones who get funding. It’s a lot more complicated than that but everything is just done privately.
When you have a central monopoly on such things by the state, you have some problems. If a government official is on trial, well, who do you think is going to win that case? There’s no accountability for the people who run the monopoly to play by the rules. They can always rule in their own favor.
So what happens when you and the factory owner have differing ideas on who’s jurisdiction the case falls under?
What happens when you take FactoryCo to court A and they rule in your favor for $5mil, but FactoryCo says they went to court B who ruled in their favor and that they owe you nothing?
Only capitalism and free markets can create wealth.
Objectively false statement right out the gate. We might argue about the most effective approach to wealth generation, but capitalism and free markets are absolutely not the only way to generate wealth. That's why "capitalism" is a term, distinguishing itself from other economic frameworks.
wealth is what solves problems in society
This is...something? What does "wealth" mean to you? Who has it? How does it "solve problems"? Nothing else contributes?
Unfortunately most people think the solution is just to steal from productive people.
Are you essentially saying that taxation is theft here? Is that your core argument?
Wealth is created in free trade. When someone creates a business, people voluntarily associate with it because it provides them with a service they need. Mutually beneficial and resources in society are sufficiently allocated. Wealth is created.
And yes taxation is theft. You get thrown in jail if you don’t pay. Everything should operate on a voluntary basis. Don’t use violence to achieve your goals. Voluntary solutions only.
Wealth is created in free trade. When someone creates a business, people voluntarily associate with it because it provides them with a service they need. Mutually beneficial and resources in society are sufficiently allocated. Wealth is created.
This does not answer any of the questions I posed. Is resource allocation the big solve? What does wealth have to do with distribution? Who gets the resources? How are they distributed? How does wealth solve problems?
And yes taxation is theft. You get thrown in jail if you don’t pay. Everything should operate on a voluntary basis. Don’t use violence to achieve your goals. Voluntary solutions only.
Have you considered the ramifications of this line of thought for things like roads, police, fire services, education, or any other public goods? Should public goods not exist? Are you suggesting that all goods should be private? What about regulating authorities that make sure your drinking water and foodstuffs are safe to consume? Should a person's access to these things be predicated upon the number in their bank account?
If you opt out of paying tax, should you be allowed to drive on the roads? Should the fire-brigade simply let your house burn? What if everyone opted out? Why not? I hope it makes sense that without taxation you would literally not have government at all, as there would be no way to fund it. Maybe you like that idea, but loosely speaking, government is how a society organizes itself. It's sort of what society is.
The free market allocates resources to their most productive use. Millions of people voluntarily participate in a market and people choose where to spend their money. A centrally planned economy by government cannot ever account for the desires and incentives of all these people. So people must be free to choose how to spend their money without coercion. Wealth solves people’s problems because their needs are met by people who create businesses to provide services for them. When someone spends money to create a business and turns a profit off of their investment, society becomes richer.
And yes everything should be privatized. Public services function as monopolies. You have one provider. Don’t like that potholes in the roads aren’t getting fixed? Too bad. You have one provider of roads and they suck at it. Private companies must win consent from consumers. Bad businesses fail and ones that provide good services will get funding. Public services will get funding involuntarily regardless of how good or bad they are.
There’s WAY more to understanding how society would function without government. But understand that something like a private company selling food that is dangerous to consume without explicit consent of the consumer would constitute a violation of people’s property rights and would justify action against them through private courts and whatnot. Private law is extremely complicated but there’s plenty of theory out there for how it would work.
The free market allocates resources to their most productive use. Millions of people voluntarily participate in a market and people choose where to spend their money. A centrally planned economy by government cannot ever account for the desires and incentives of all these people. So people must be free to choose how to spend their money without coercion. Wealth solves people’s problems because their needs are met by people who create businesses to provide services for them. When someone spends money to create a business and turns a profit off of their investment, society becomes richer.
I agree with you on points of capitalism being an effective wealth generator, but the idea that a free market automatically allocates resources to their most productive use is dubious. I would argue that a totally free market would allocate resources to their most wealth generating use for whoever controls said resources. Very productive for that entity, maybe counterproductive generally. Thinking along the lines of pollution, emission, microplastics/forever-chemicals, overfishing/hunting, sustainability generally.
This system also fails to account for problems nobody wants to fix, or where the potential return is too low. If some enterprising folks drum up a business that provides a service, great! What if they don't? What if I can't afford their service? We're talking essentials here, not a cool new software start-up. Access matters.
And yes everything should be privatized. Public services function as monopolies. You have one provider. Don’t like that potholes in the roads aren’t getting fixed? Too bad. You have one provider of roads and they suck at it. Private companies must win consent from consumers. Bad businesses fail and ones that provide good services will get funding. Public services will get funding involuntarily regardless of how good or bad they are.
Well we all know there are issues with bureaucracy, not arguing that. The issue here is that you argue public services are monopolies, as if privatization avoids monopolies? Monopolies have had to be specifically legislated against right here in capitalist America because they are a natural by-product of unchecked capitalism and free markets. The big get bigger until they simply consume every small fish as they come along, this is well documented. You can just as easily have a single, private road service that sucks equally bad. Even if there was competition, how would you switch who maintains the road to your apartment complex in the city? Who owns the tiny road with a couple houses along it in the woods, and who are their providers? I want a new road provider... how does that work? Are all roads now toll-roads?
There’s WAY more to understanding how society would function without government. But understand that something like a private company selling food that is dangerous to consume without explicit consent of the consumer would constitute a violation of people’s property rights and would justify action against them through private courts and whatnot. Private law is extremely complicated but there’s plenty of theory out there for how it would work.
But what are rights? What is law? What's a court? Nobody is paying tax, so nobody is there. Are those private too? Which court should I hire to try my case? Are successful private judges more fair or simply more popular? Who sits on the jury? Are there even juries? Who handles crimes between individuals, not businesses? What corporation do I call when there is an intruder in my home? What if I missed a bill? What about national security? What happens if the nation is attacked? Who will defend us? How does the entity defending the nation decide which people have paid up? What if the economy dips and business is bad? What if the business defending us fails? What if my local mail provider fails? How do I get packages? Are you really suggesting that nothing should be governed?
Labor itself doesn’t create wealth in any meaningful way. You need minds at the top to coordinate labor and resources in an efficient manor to create wealth. You need to solve other people’s problems. That’s what capitalism does. Government is what usually concentrates money by things like inflation.
You've kind of forgot that after the first page of introduction to capitalism there are 999 pages left that explains the rest. Don't be lazy with your explanations.
Sorry, but your comment was removed for breaking our Don't Be A Dick rule. This may include but is not limited to harassment, bigotry or uncivil behaviour.
🚨 Did we make a mistake?
If this is a mistake, don't delete the comment - just contact us and we'll fix it.
No it doesn’t. It creates wealth. Free trade is the only system to do so. That is wealth that benefits society as a whole. Government policies like inflation do, however, concentrate wealth.
The kinds of people like the guy you are responding to don't know anything about the economic systems they champion. I doubt he has ever even read a single excerpt from "The Wealth of Nations"
Being against free trade is stupid. It’s just people voluntarily trading with each other. What gives you the right to use aggressive force to stop people from doing so?
A free market eventually becomes a controlled one without regulation. Theodore Roosevelt was the trust buster that stopped the concentration of wealth through monopolistic practices. Ole Rockefeller and Carnegie were ruthless capitalists that worked their men like dogs with the 6-12 schedule that only allowed Sundays off for the lord. A heavy hand in the markets leads to chaos but an unregulated market will lead to wealth concentration, meaning you have to have a common sense middle ground. It’s like how we are a democratic republic, you take the best of the two systems and create a good middle ground to combat the shortcomings of either one.
Monopolies are fiction of the state. They are created when companies lobby government for beneficial restrictions to crush competition. And monopolies aren’t sustainable because of the economic calculation problem. So monopolies eventually collapse as they have no competition and no way to calculate the costs of their resource allocation in an efficient manner as they control everything.
Inflation is when government prints money. That is so obviously a government policy. But please tell me about how “muh corporate greed” causes inflation. I’d love to hear all about your economic illiteracy.
•
u/Savings_Studio_5678 3d ago
You eliminate poverty by increasing productivity not enforcing a nanny state