If you've ever been close to a human, or human behavior, you’ve probably heard the term “capitalism” before. To put it more simply, would you want to be near a capital?
Well, yes, you would; and according to the Wikipedia page for Capitalism & Freedom, it is the only economic concept with at least a 50/50 chance of being fulfilled, with a 95% probability of failure.
Is Capitalism & Freedom Stronger Than Communism?
The Wikipedia page for Capitalism & Freedom includes a section entitled “How does capitalism work?” and notes that: "It is not a free-market economy founded on free enterprise…. [capitalism] is a Free Market with all the benefits of government and capitalism and is stronger in the latter than it is in the former."
They also note that “the United States has the highest concentration of millionaires, followed by Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, India, and China” and that countries like Thailand, Costa Rica, and the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo have the highest concentration of women.
There is a section with all of the information on the terms capitalism and communism for more advanced ideologies like the Japanese Communist Party, which states: “The only difference between capitalism and communism is that communism destroys work, and capitalism destroys individual enterprise. If you want to read into the whole topic, there is a huge [sic] overhype here.”
A section devoted to J.F. Sebastian's essay on Karl Marx also includes this information, which you should read if you are planning on reading much of the book:
“Marx had a philosophy that he called praxis. He called it capitalism”
capitalism, as in all capitalist ideologies, is the idea of capitalism is a gigantic system of rent-seeking, ownership, and control, where the owners have used technology to pry into and control the citizenry.
Josiah Zayner, a PhD student from the University of Alberta, found this fascinating quote in a quote found in the book Capitalism and Freedom: The First Years of Marxism, which is published since its 1992 publication by Simon & Schuster.
Zayner argues that:
“Marx's analysis of capitalism was based on a series of criteria: his first three books were about monopoly capitalism; his last two were about the all-power, all-competition, all-equality, all-equality society he described.”
The conditions of his free-market capitalism were revolutionary – for a labor-miner or worker who wanted to live where possible, where once plots could be laid that single room a day could cost as much as $5,000 per night.
Zayner describes a government-run economy that subsidises every step of the way:
“minors worked in the kitchen, errands passed around the family, friends taken for granted in the newly independent country.”
The citizens were educated through cultural and commercial experiences that enabled them to be part of an economy that had grown rich enough to buy the food they wanted, and were thus the true consumers.
“The last word was taught to the children from the day they entered the world of the textbooks and the work stations.”
Mother nature had it better. She paid, and as the workers played their cards good-bye, or the next round of tests would begin.
The new owners of the time would be the true consumers, absorbing all of the savings, investing in infrastructure to keep schools running and provide for the elderly, and keeping the fishing fleets alive with drone technology.
The new owners would be the true consumers, not lazy rent-seekers who hoovered the most expensive rental items for their next trip, but the tens of thousands of consumers who had grown tired of being treated poorly in every aspect of life.
The future was here, and the market was projected to respond by trying to fill the gap left by inflation, deflation and price collapse.
Imagine how difficult it would be to diversify your income after a certain point. All the boring old income taxes, contracts, contracts of manpower, all the useless governmental projects, and the occasional niche niche interest.
And then what?
Freeze-jerk reaction, repeated over and over, with or without the appropriate ideological touch? What the hell?