Toby, have you ever heard of or considered Distributism? It proposes that the means of production should be privately owned by as many people as possible, vs only a few (capitalism) or the state (socialism). This means promoting small, independent businesses and farms, and where large businesses exist, that they are organized as an employee-owned cooperative.
Although most Distributists are Catholics, it is not strictly a religious ideology.
I would suggest that we're combating moral rather than systemic failures. Blaming capitalism doesn't address the underlying fault. We'll never broadly realize a polity that rewards hard work, decency and innovation without recognizing that our objective should be establishing, sustaining and defending a polity that supports liberty where liberty is freedom plus morality grounded in reverence for life.
Very nearly all of London's Webcams went dark in early September. Why?
They may bypass the next pandemic and go straight for the nuclear option.
Radiation is on the CDC list with marburg and ebola and will trigger a public health emergency.
As you know, control of the Eurasian landmass is central to Western foreign policy objectives and the war in Ukraine against Russia is being lost. For NATO to be drawn into a greater conflict a pretext is required It is essential that an outrage is committed.
I live in the UK and I can see that the rhetoric of fear and further war is being hysterically and viciously promoted on the BBC. Their mentality is obviously and disturbingly sick.
If they are going to do this, the "Russian attack" will be fake but the deaths in London will be real. They need a pretext to draw NATO into a greater war against Russia and a terrorist outrage over Xmas is just the thing.
Publicity posted beforehand on X or on other websites may make it difficult for this to succeed, and we may be able to save lives. Thanks.
When the gangsters are the "power elite" turf wars have no boundaries. The whole system is and always will be a brilliant scam, as long as there are people who make the rules for the rest. Sadly, people think they need other adults to control and tell them what to do rather than following a good conscience.
The monopolists did not do this on their own, they had help, from us. Yes, we the people helped them. If you look at the wealth distribution graph between the 0.1% and the rest, for the past century, you will find a golden period of increasing prosperity free m the end of WW2 for 50 years, using Keynes theory of aggregate demand. Then suddenly in 1980, economists like Laffer, Hyak and Friedmen came up with supply side economics for perpetual employment, by reducing taxes on h to help rich and cutting social benefits on the poor. That was when monopoly capitalism began, but it wasn’t till Gordon Gekko used the term “greed is good, that a tapeworm was introduced into the cultural zeitgeist and began to eat away our values. If everything has a price, then nothing has value! Save in order to spend was overtaken by spend in order to save! Our own greed is a tapeworm planted inside the zeitgeist.
The success or failure for any economic system theory is in the assumption of the participants. Mises attempted to resolve this for liberal systems in Human Action but as a treatise the principles hold true regardless of the concept.
It boils down to the fact that economics cannot be a true science as it's impossible to predict ex ante because doing so requires ideally rational, informed, free individuals in a system free of corruption. This is impossible. Individuals are often irrational and illogical, do not act perfectly in their own interest and there's externalities causing imbalance.
Therefore economics is a social science where it's sometimes possible to apply mathematical models ex post analytically. All practical systems can eventually succumb to the lying, stealing, cheating inherent tendency in humanity regardless of what they might be called academically. Adam Smith is just as valid as Keynes or Marx or Mises in their textbooks but will falter in the real world of humans rather than robots.
Sometimes that means being pleasantly surprised by the creativity and generosity of humans but often it leads to misery due to the greed and ego. Many thinkers on the subject have their theories but it seems to me the primary question is whether the individual has freedom to succeed or fail in an impartially competitive system. Competition is implicit because resources are fundamentally limited. Competition doesn't have to mean war, although that is the human experience it seems. But some sort of debate or struggle over how best to use resources is inescapable.
So the best economic system is the one where the most number of people can be content and fulfilled. This is measured I think by the ancillaries such as how much art is created, happiness, leisure time, etc. But that's also why economics can't be a true science. The measurement of success is subjective. Using productivity and output are the results of trying to make the observation and equations converge. Yet, without at least trying to apply forward metrics you easily can end up with disproportionate poverty and hunger. It's a never-ending cycle of trying to find the most stable point.
Toby, Are you not confusing capitalism with progressive liberal crony capitalism (that driven by politicians). Surely you have the right as an individual to use the earned capital (money) form your hard work for your benefit?
John D. Rockefeller and his fellow 19th-century capitalists held one absolute belief: that great monetary wealth could not be accumulated under the impartial rules of a competitive laissez-faire society. The only sure path to massive wealth was monopoly: drive out competitors, reduce competition, eliminate laissez-faire, and above all, secure state protection for your industry through compliant politicians and government regulation. This approach results in a legal monopoly, and a legal monopoly always leads to wealth.
This "robber baron" scheme is also the socialist plan. The key difference between a corporate state monopoly and a socialist state monopoly is essentially the identity of the group controlling the power structure. We call this phenomenon of corporate legal monopoly—market control acquired by political influence—by the name of corporate socialism.
It’s going to be interesting the next few years as the Trump team takes on the challenge of what to do about it all- dismantling the dysfunctional system while maintaining a basic social safety net will be tricky biz! I hope the country has the gumption to face the hard task.
Thank you thank you for this article
Toby, have you ever heard of or considered Distributism? It proposes that the means of production should be privately owned by as many people as possible, vs only a few (capitalism) or the state (socialism). This means promoting small, independent businesses and farms, and where large businesses exist, that they are organized as an employee-owned cooperative.
Although most Distributists are Catholics, it is not strictly a religious ideology.
Free introductory material here: https://practicaldistributism.com/distributism-basics/
I would suggest that we're combating moral rather than systemic failures. Blaming capitalism doesn't address the underlying fault. We'll never broadly realize a polity that rewards hard work, decency and innovation without recognizing that our objective should be establishing, sustaining and defending a polity that supports liberty where liberty is freedom plus morality grounded in reverence for life.
Very interesting! Have you examined other systems such as Communism to see if they ultimately lead to the same result, albeit in a different form?
I needed to read this. Thank you.
Thanks for the education Toby. We see ‘them’ in plain sight and I have to believe that someday the tides will turn.
Are they planning a false flag event in London?
https://alexkrainer.substack.com/p/are-they-planning-a-false-flag-event
Very nearly all of London's Webcams went dark in early September. Why?
They may bypass the next pandemic and go straight for the nuclear option.
Radiation is on the CDC list with marburg and ebola and will trigger a public health emergency.
As you know, control of the Eurasian landmass is central to Western foreign policy objectives and the war in Ukraine against Russia is being lost. For NATO to be drawn into a greater conflict a pretext is required It is essential that an outrage is committed.
I live in the UK and I can see that the rhetoric of fear and further war is being hysterically and viciously promoted on the BBC. Their mentality is obviously and disturbingly sick.
If they are going to do this, the "Russian attack" will be fake but the deaths in London will be real. They need a pretext to draw NATO into a greater war against Russia and a terrorist outrage over Xmas is just the thing.
Publicity posted beforehand on X or on other websites may make it difficult for this to succeed, and we may be able to save lives. Thanks.
PLEASE help COVID whistleblower Dr Chris recover his 'hijacked' income.
https://givesendgo.com/drshoemaker?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=drshoemaker
When the gangsters are the "power elite" turf wars have no boundaries. The whole system is and always will be a brilliant scam, as long as there are people who make the rules for the rest. Sadly, people think they need other adults to control and tell them what to do rather than following a good conscience.
The monopolists did not do this on their own, they had help, from us. Yes, we the people helped them. If you look at the wealth distribution graph between the 0.1% and the rest, for the past century, you will find a golden period of increasing prosperity free m the end of WW2 for 50 years, using Keynes theory of aggregate demand. Then suddenly in 1980, economists like Laffer, Hyak and Friedmen came up with supply side economics for perpetual employment, by reducing taxes on h to help rich and cutting social benefits on the poor. That was when monopoly capitalism began, but it wasn’t till Gordon Gekko used the term “greed is good, that a tapeworm was introduced into the cultural zeitgeist and began to eat away our values. If everything has a price, then nothing has value! Save in order to spend was overtaken by spend in order to save! Our own greed is a tapeworm planted inside the zeitgeist.
The success or failure for any economic system theory is in the assumption of the participants. Mises attempted to resolve this for liberal systems in Human Action but as a treatise the principles hold true regardless of the concept.
It boils down to the fact that economics cannot be a true science as it's impossible to predict ex ante because doing so requires ideally rational, informed, free individuals in a system free of corruption. This is impossible. Individuals are often irrational and illogical, do not act perfectly in their own interest and there's externalities causing imbalance.
Therefore economics is a social science where it's sometimes possible to apply mathematical models ex post analytically. All practical systems can eventually succumb to the lying, stealing, cheating inherent tendency in humanity regardless of what they might be called academically. Adam Smith is just as valid as Keynes or Marx or Mises in their textbooks but will falter in the real world of humans rather than robots.
Sometimes that means being pleasantly surprised by the creativity and generosity of humans but often it leads to misery due to the greed and ego. Many thinkers on the subject have their theories but it seems to me the primary question is whether the individual has freedom to succeed or fail in an impartially competitive system. Competition is implicit because resources are fundamentally limited. Competition doesn't have to mean war, although that is the human experience it seems. But some sort of debate or struggle over how best to use resources is inescapable.
So the best economic system is the one where the most number of people can be content and fulfilled. This is measured I think by the ancillaries such as how much art is created, happiness, leisure time, etc. But that's also why economics can't be a true science. The measurement of success is subjective. Using productivity and output are the results of trying to make the observation and equations converge. Yet, without at least trying to apply forward metrics you easily can end up with disproportionate poverty and hunger. It's a never-ending cycle of trying to find the most stable point.
Toby, Are you not confusing capitalism with progressive liberal crony capitalism (that driven by politicians). Surely you have the right as an individual to use the earned capital (money) form your hard work for your benefit?
John D. Rockefeller and his fellow 19th-century capitalists held one absolute belief: that great monetary wealth could not be accumulated under the impartial rules of a competitive laissez-faire society. The only sure path to massive wealth was monopoly: drive out competitors, reduce competition, eliminate laissez-faire, and above all, secure state protection for your industry through compliant politicians and government regulation. This approach results in a legal monopoly, and a legal monopoly always leads to wealth.
This "robber baron" scheme is also the socialist plan. The key difference between a corporate state monopoly and a socialist state monopoly is essentially the identity of the group controlling the power structure. We call this phenomenon of corporate legal monopoly—market control acquired by political influence—by the name of corporate socialism.
Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and FDR, Chapter 5.
Just started reading. Typo ... "necessary" should necessarily be "necessarily". Thanks Toby!
Fixed! Thank you!!!
Don't know if you follow economist Richard Wolff, but he is worth listening to. He breaks down capitalism like no one can.
He's great! I saw him speak in person in 2011!
It’s going to be interesting the next few years as the Trump team takes on the challenge of what to do about it all- dismantling the dysfunctional system while maintaining a basic social safety net will be tricky biz! I hope the country has the gumption to face the hard task.