Capitalism and Success

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 8. 2009

Capitalism does not exist, says Bruce Walker at American Thinker. One quote:

What we call "Capitalism" actually encompasses something much grander and much broader. Wealth is not simply financial wealth and man is much greater than homo economus, a creature governed solely by economic factors. Except for neurotic personalities, like the fictional Midas or Scrooge, people work, invest and strive for success in the marketplace of all human interactions.

As Walker notes, in free-market, "capitalist" societies, non-neurotic people pursue many goals besides or other than accumulating money. Indeed, for the vast majority of folks, money is just a tool for pursuing other personal goals, of which the main one is rightly independence and security.

Posted by The Barrister in Politics, The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 10:35 | Comments (10) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Good article. I, for one, will not adopt the new word, meritalism, but will cling to the original concept of capitalism. I have never suffered from the boxing in of the term to exclude the artists, religious, or philosophers. Entertain, enlighten, or stimulate thought in me, and you've sung for your supper.

I like Chesterton's observation, made in 1921 when was socialism all the rage among U.S. Hollyweird and D.C. eilite, was that it is not a case of there being too much capitalism, but rather too few capitalists.

Perhaps tangentially related - I just came across this press release from the Metals Service Center Institute from January 2008 which should give us all cause for alarm:

U.S. Loses Capability to Equip Itself for Future Conflicts, new Forward Magazine Reports

ROLLING MEADOWS, Illinois, January 8, 2008 � The United States has lost critically needed capabilities to arm itself for future wars, the lead article in the January/February 2008 issue of MSCI�s Forward magazine reports.

What�s more, the magazine says, the Pentagon lacks the information necessary to know whether important weapons components now rely on foreign-sourced parts or materials. The military procurement system doesn�t require lower-tier contractors to report their use of foreign-sourced parts and materials, and the Defense Department isn�t interested in pursuing the question.

It's not like we're going to be able to defend capitalism anyway...

#1 The Distributist on 2009-01-08 11:24 (Reply)

I don't believe the 'new' Forward Magazine knows what the Pentagon knows. Gee, "...and the Defense Department isn't interested in pursuing the question." d'oh. Let's just have a nap then.
`

#1.1 Meta on 2009-01-08 11:55 (Reply)

Meta dear ... This is the "new journalism" where you don't have to source your quotes, but just make didactic statements. A lot easier -- but sloppier and definitely deceptive.

Marianne

#2 Marianne Matthews on 2009-01-08 12:59 (Reply)

Actually, "Forward" is a rather bland, "backward" thinking (by "progressive" standards) industry rag that has the audacity to look out for the best interests of American manufacturers with specialization in metals services. I think by using "new" they meant the most recent issue.

The full article is found here, and has quite a few attributions, sourced quotes and the like from within the Pentagon, the politricksters and the industry. Particularly credible seems Pentagon public affairs officer Chris Isleib who highlights the problem the Pentagon and defense contractors do not want to talk about, saying it lies in the complex mysteries of the increasingly global supply chain. �DoD does not, as a routine matter, track which specific parts of weapons systems are sourced overseas,� Isleib says. �Such a department-wide data collection effort would impose significant costs and be of questionable utility.�

Sorry for the confusion, but I think the problem is real, and I do not trust the incoming administration and their supporting unions to address the matter.

#2.1 The Distributist on 2009-01-08 15:09 (Reply)

It actually makes sense - the difficulty of tracking everything. What I don't buy is that we are bereft of the means to protect ourselves because of this. Someone is making the orders and seeing they are filled, and if what they need is not coming in, they will find another source. What about Boeing and Raytheon? Private companies employed by the Pentagon. I doubt they have the problem.

It does explain, partly, why it takes so long to build anything like a big ship. ... Four years late and millions more in cost, etc.
`

#2.1.1 Meta on 2009-01-08 18:24 (Reply)

I rarely use Capitalism when I can substitute the term "Marketplace". Capitalism is a tool of the marketplace - that is the ownership and trading of capital within a market situation, thereby affording greater liquidity and properly spreading economic information throughout the Market itself.

Capitalism is an ideal (as is the "Free Market"), which is unlikely to ever be achieved. But it's a terrific ideal, far better than any of the alternatives.

Sadly, like anything else, politics gets its ugly fingers into the Capitalism pie and spoils everything. EVERYTHING, from the micro level (how many politically motivated bosses have you had? I've had plenty) to the macro level (absurd use of public funds to "bailout" and "prop up" dead industries that have lavished greedy and useless politicians with perks over the years).

I'll stick to discussing the Market - because the Market is real, accurate, and precise. Whether it is the market for stocks, for money, for food, or for ideas...the Market is real and always with us EVEN WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OUTLAWS IT (black markets)!

#3 Rick on 2009-01-08 13:14 (Reply)

At Maggie's, we rarely speak of Capitalism altho we describe ourselves as Capitalists. What we do speak of is markets and incentives and opposed to command and control.

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2009-01-08 14:10 (Reply)

This is entirely off the subject, but did anyone else know that Fannie Mae had a FOUNDATION paying out $600,000-plus paychecks to executives to "give away" money for housing? What in the heck is Fannie Mae???? I'm baffled.

#4 JAM on 2009-01-08 16:48 (Reply)

Pursuit of . . . happiness, perhaps?

The one given to us by our Creator, as the Declaration of Independence would have it?

Could be.

#5 Everyman (Link) on 2009-01-08 19:40 (Reply)

Fannie Mae--she daid.

#6 qwfwq on 2009-01-08 19:51 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Thursday, January 8. 2009

Capitalism and Success