Capitalism only works...

[2ndRateMind]

If you don't have capital, it won't work for you.

This is because people, even those with masses of money, are loath to part with it. If you don't have money, and need to earn your living, you will be paid the absolute minimum people who do have money can get away with, so as to maximise their profit from your labour.

This is not a 'good' system for the majority of humanity. If it is not good, then it cannot be Christian.

Discuss.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Furrowed Brow]

... I'm not able to find anything that remotely resembles a lucid point.

I am sorry my post fell below the level of lucidity you require. Let me walk you through the simplified version that spells it out more clearly.

• Bluethread's claim: Socialism is the cause of the majority of world poverty
  
  FB's counter claim: socialism is not the cause the majority of world poverty.
  
  FB's data set: the list of poorest countries.
  
  FB's interpretation of the data: a similar pattern of empire and post empire intervention along with local corruption and war appears to be the more cogent explanation for the countries that fill the bottom half of the list of the world's richest and poorest.
  
  Inference: socialism is not the cause of the majority of world poverty

.
To be true my interpretation of the data needs more work to be conclusive but I struggle too see how the basic point is not cogent. I am sorry you could not make out what I was saying.

Is your point that Africa is locked into a perpetual cycle of poverty because of western oppression?

Perpetual? Probably not. And I would not over emphasise the phrase "Western Oppression". Local elites (Non Western) are usually part of the problem. If I were to use a phrase it would be more like wealthy oppressing the rest. But I think that too would be open to misinterpretation. I do not think wealthy people are bad people or that poor people are good people. My point is aimed at the system and how wealth and power are distributed within capitalism. Where there are big profits to be made that require control of land and resources then the forces of power and wealth accumulate to ensure profits are made in favour of wealth and power and that basic mechanism ensures the class of people identified as the poor always remain the poorest.

I would use a phrase like "Western oppression" for many specific cases. There are too many examples to name of left leaning governments coming to power drawing intervention from all directions including corporations, secret service, financial institutions and local wealthy elites. I'd point you to the work of either John Perkins or John Pilger who report on this kind of intervention.

I'd actually agree with you on that! And it's actually your fault!

My fault. Yikes!

In case you're not familiar with it, the European Union that you probably desperately want to remain apart of...

You assume too much. It is a digression but to clarify I voted to Leave and remain a Leaver. Unfortunately the Brexit debate was hijacked by mostly right wing sentiments. But the traditional left wing of British politics has always been Euro sceptic. The "Lexit" voices kind of got drowned out.

...European Union...has this little thing called the common agricultural policy. As a result of the enormous agricultural subsidization of European farms, the EU is able to relentlessly dump subsidized agricultural products on Africa at rock bottom prices, thereby effectively destroying Africa's primary (agricultural) sector.

And I would be against that.

Developing regions like Africa are HIGHLY dependent on their primary (agricultural) sectors as their main source of economic activity, and yet it seems that the EU is hell bent on obliterating African farms.

...it is a kind of economic warfare no?

I suggest the motivation for the tariffs and subsidies is to protect European landowners and put hurdles in the way of their competitors.

Let me give you a slightly different example. As a member of the EU citizens are allowed to travel and work across borders with little regulation to hamper that. As a result hundred of thousands of East Europeans came to Britain looking for work and higher wages. So significant has been this demographic shift Polish stores on British high streets are now a common sight (at least where I live) where once they were unknown. As I wish to retain freedom of movement for myself I support freedom of movement. However what also happened was that many larger corporations started to advertise British jobs abroad to encourage foreign workers more ready to accept lower wages. In many cases they did more than just advertise. Some helped with housing too. I know one firm that helped find accommodation for foreign workers and helped with deposits and other stuff designed to smooth the way. One major supermarket built dormitories for foreign workers. As they were providing accommodation they paid these workers a lower wage. Once that was established they turned around to their British based workers and slashed their wages. I have more examples - and would regulate against this kind of behaviour every single time.

I am not against free trade - I support the workers right to go where they want and I am not against the employer having the freedom to hire foreign labour - but I am ambivalent about free trade and question exactly where and when the freedom is allowed. My concern is that the capital owner exploiting workers and the working class being locked out of sharing in the profits they help create.

Africa, which is probably the poorest region in the world, has been set back for decades due to protectionist EU trade policies.

I'd agree. But I suspect you tend to make the mistake of thinking that unless there is free trade it cannot be capitalism. This is not true. So long as ownership of means of production is not the government and is in private hands and work is done by paid labour it is capitalism. So I too can lament the tariffs and the economic warfare through regulation - because government pandering to a landed demographic who own the means of production is not socialism.

The other poor regions of the world, throughout the middle east, Asia, and Latin America, are NOT politically or economically liberal, unlike their thriving counterparts. In Asia, we have four countries that have been named the "Asian tigers" due to their fast paced economic growth. They are all capitalist. Chile is the most economically free nation in Latin America and is also the most prosperous.

I think you are glossing over the different histories. Scratch below the surface the story is an interesting mix.

Until 1990 the Singapore economy was steered by the benevolent socialist dictator Lee Kuan Yew.

Hong Kong has historically been a major trading hub and an access point to mainland China.

South Korea was once on of the poorest countries in the world. But since the Korea War it has achieved politically stability, has a kick ass state funded eduction system and because of its strategic importance has access to all the markets and finance it requires as a de facto protectorate of the US.

Chile was the test case for the Chicago boys and Friedman's economics. It was a dictatorship until 1990. Whilst that fascist-Chicago experiment has been successful at creating an affluent middle class Chile also has some of the worst inequality statistics for a developed country, it has overcrowded prisons and it is still accused of torture. Whilst Chile is now a democracy I'd question free markets can be free given Chile's history and its current levels of inequality. Meaning someone is being oppressed somewhere.

Uh, ok. And for an academic, unbiased, professional, objective analysis of capitalism and developing nations I suggest becoming acquainted with a development econ textbook.

I suspect you may be wanting to refer me to a reading list from a business school education. As Marxian economist Ricard Wolf points out he had to teach himself Marx because the subject was taboo in American universities and business schools are cheer leaders for capitalism.That said I do not doubt there is cogent analysis tp be found in the body or works you might suggest but the word "unbiased" is questionable.

FACT: Free trade and free markets lift nations out of poverty. No serious academic economist argues otherwise.

In essence I do not argue against that - but like the Chile model - the picture is not so rosy. And I do put limits on free trade as I think any sane and just society would too. That is how we have factory laws in the 19th century Britain that prevented child labour. On a more modern subject - how the heck can any country allow bovine growth hormones in its food supply? Fortunately it is banned in Europe. Phew! (but I voted to Leave..arghh!) The list of things there should be a law against is long. I really think there should be a law against selling strawberry flavoured heroin to kids. OK I'm being facetious unless of course you really think there should not be a law against it.

Do the principles of free trade mean Britain was in the right in the opium wars to contest their heroin trade into China?

The truth is that in any stable society with a system of laws there is never 100% free trade. Different societies set the bar as to what is permitted at different levels. The arguments is over just how high or low the bar is set.

ALL respectable economists understand that emerging market nations need capitalism and sweatshops.

Then they ain't respectable and to bring this back to the thread...how the heck can that be Christian? And more important how could lobbying for greater regulation to prevent stuff like sweatshops not be the Christian thing to do?

I fully accept more trade increases wealth and more liberal markets allow more trade. I accept that capitalism can make a lot of people wealthy. But you have failed to show that socialism is the cause of poverty. Maybe you are not trying to argue that - or if you were it got lost.

My basic point was and is that if we look at the causes of world poverty we are going to find the problem was and is the pursuit of profit with various competing interest groups scrambling over the control of the means of production and resources. Over the last few hundred years this has mainly been done by the West on the rest of the world through the mechanism of empire and more lately neo-colonialism. I accept your point that the richer nations protecting their own markets through tariff and subsidy is harmful to poorer nations.

[WinePusher]

• Bluethread's claim: Socialism is the cause of the majority of world poverty
  
  FB's counter claim: socialism is not the cause the majority of world poverty.
  
  FB's data set: the list of poorest countries.
  
  FB's interpretation of the data: a similar pattern of empire and post empire intervention along with local corruption and war appears to be the more cogent explanation for the countries that fill the bottom half of the list of the world's richest and poorest.

These countries are poor because they are not politically or economically free. Sure, war and colonialism may have hindered their growth potential, but introducing free markets, free trade and democratic political institutions would undoubtedly make these countries richer.

You assume too much. It is a digression but to clarify I voted to Leave and remain a Leaver. Unfortunately the Brexit debate was hijacked by mostly right wing sentiments. But the traditional left wing of British politics has always been Euro sceptic. The "Lexit" voices kind of got drowned out.

Interesting. I apologize for the assumption.

Let me give you a slightly different example. As a member of the EU citizens are allowed to travel and work across borders with little regulation to hamper that. As a result hundred of thousands of East Europeans came to Britain looking for work and higher wages. So significant has been this demographic shift Polish stores on British high streets are now a common sight (at least where I live) where once they were unknown. As I wish to retain freedom of movement for myself I support freedom of movement. However what also happened was that many larger corporations started to advertise British jobs abroad to encourage foreign workers more ready to accept lower wages. In many cases they did more than just advertise. Some helped with housing too. I know one firm that helped find accommodation for foreign workers and helped with deposits and other stuff designed to smooth the way. One major supermarket built dormitories for foreign workers. As they were providing accommodation they paid these workers a lower wage. Once that was established they turned around to their British based workers and slashed their wages. I have more examples - and would regulate against this kind of behaviour every single time.

I am not against free trade - I support the workers right to go where they want and I am not against the employer having the freedom to hire foreign labour - but I am ambivalent about free trade and question exactly where and when the freedom is allowed. My concern is that the capital owner exploiting workers and the working class being locked out of sharing in the profits they help create.

First of all, you do have the freedom to move to wherever you want to within your home country. I don't believe there are any restrictions of moving between England, Scotland and Wales, are there? Restrictions on mobility kick in when we begin looking at things on a country by country basis. You don't have the freedom to pack up your bags and freely move to the USA, or Russia. You first need to go through a series of obstacles in order to obtain citizenship for the country you're looking to move to.

The freedom of movement within the EU has been disastrous for Britain. It is also highly questionable as to why one would even think it's OK to treat EU member nations as being completely identical to states within the United States. Sure,I can move from California to New York whenever I want to. But that's because California and New York are merely states that fall under the umbrella of one federal government.

Second, most economists do believe in the free movement of labor. In fact, most economists support immigration based on the same reasons that they support free trade. I don't. The freedom to move product and commodities between countries is a good thing. The freedom to move labor and workers between countries, without any restriction, has its ups and downs. Clearly, a major downside would be the inability of these foreign workers to properly assimilate to the values of their host country.

I'd agree. But I suspect you tend to make the mistake of thinking that unless there is free trade it cannot be capitalism. This is not true. So long as ownership of means of production is not the government and is in private hands and work is done by paid labour it is capitalism. So I too can lament the tariffs and the economic warfare through regulation - because government pandering to a landed demographic who own the means of production is not socialism.

Free trade generally is associated with capitalism because socialist economies are managed and centrally planned, meaning that the pricing and allocation of goods and services is set by planning boards, not market forces. Free trade would necessarily alter and interfere with any type of socialist planning scheme.

I think you are glossing over the different histories. Scratch below the surface the story is an interesting mix.

Until 1990 the Singapore economy was steered by the benevolent socialist dictator Lee Kuan Yew.

Hong Kong has historically been a major trading hub and an access point to mainland China.

South Korea was once on of the poorest countries in the world. But since the Korea War it has achieved politically stability, has a kick ass state funded eduction system and because of its strategic importance has access to all the markets and finance it requires as a de facto protectorate of the US.

Chile was the test case for the Chicago boys and Friedman's economics. It was a dictatorship until 1990. Whilst that fascist-Chicago experiment has been successful at creating an affluent middle class Chile also has some of the worst inequality statistics for a developed country, it has overcrowded prisons and it is still accused of torture. Whilst Chile is now a democracy I'd question free markets can be free given Chile's history and its current levels of inequality. Meaning someone is being oppressed somewhere.

At this point, our dialogue is basically no different than a dialogue between a fundamentalist anti vaxxer and a doctor. I'm sure you can think of millions of different reasons, based on layman articles you've read, to argue that the fast paced growth of the 4 asian economies was not due to free markets. However, the academic and consensus among people who are actually trained in this particular field is that free markets and capitalism allowed these 4 asian countries to experience unprecedented economic growth.

I suspect you may be wanting to refer me to a reading list from a business school education. As Marxian economist Ricard Wolf points out he had to teach himself Marx because the subject was taboo in American universities and business schools are cheer leaders for capitalism.That said I do not doubt there is cogent analysis tp be found in the body or works you might suggest but the word "unbiased" is questionable.

Uh, why would medical schools devote inordinate amounts of time teaching homeopathy? Why would law schools spend time teaching the code of Hammurabi? Why would business schools spend a bunch of time teaching the thoroughly debunked and falsified theories of Marxism?

Marxism is rejected by the mainstream for a reason. Schools teach Marxism only to the extent that is needed to have a holistic understanding of the history of economic thought. Of course we should all be at least tangentially familiar with an economic theory that has been responsible for the systematic murder of millions of people world wide, that way we won't repeat the mistakes of the past.

ALL respectable economists understand that emerging market nations need capitalism and sweatshops.

Then they ain't respectable and to bring this back to the thread...how the heck can that be Christian? And more important how could lobbying for greater regulation to prevent stuff like sweatshops not be the Christian thing to do?

Again FB, this is like an anti vaxxer talking to a medical doctor. Sweat shops are the first step towards industrialization, and industrialization is the key to long run growth development.

NO, that doesn't make me an advocate of people dying from work. NO, that doesn't mean I want to see workers suffer. It just means that realistically looking at the state of third world nations, the benefits of sweat shops tremendously outweigh the costs. Economists who have actually objectively analyzed the benefits of sweatshops understand this, including Paul Krugman.

I fully accept more trade increases wealth and more liberal markets allow more trade. I accept that capitalism can make a lot of people wealthy. But you have failed to show that socialism is the cause of poverty. Maybe you are not trying to argue that - or if you were it got lost.

Socialism is the cause of poverty. The poorest nations in the world are not economically free. The essence of capitalism, which is the entrepreneur, is criticized and vilified throughout Marx's works. The vilification of entrepreneurs is ubiquitous throughout socialist economies because entrepreneurs are portrayed a parasites who merely take from the economy without adding back in any real value. This is clearly false, and the reason why capitalist countries are RICHER than their socialist counterparts is that entrepreneurs are celebrated.

My basic point was and is that if we look at the causes of world poverty we are going to find the problem was and is the pursuit of profit with various competing interest groups scrambling over the control of the means of production and resources.

If no one wanted to make a profit then no one would try to innovate, improve, create something better, create a better process, etc. Innovation, along with free trade, are the two keys to economic development. No company or individual would put in the blood, sweat and tears to create a product to improve the lives of people if they didn't think it would pay off for them in the end. By seeking profits and by trying to enrich themselves, these "capitalists" are indirectly enriching the lives of every single person who buys their product.

[Bust Nak]

Sweat shops are the first step towards industrialization, and industrialization is the key to long run growth development.

NO, that doesn't make me an advocate of people dying from work. NO, that doesn't mean I want to see workers suffer. It just means that realistically looking at the state of third world nations, the benefits of sweat shops tremendously outweigh the costs. Economists who have actually objectively analyzed the benefits of sweatshops understand this, including Paul Krugman.

Benefit outweigh the cost in terms of GDP sure. You are not supposed to weight human suffering in terms of cold hard cash.

If no one wanted to make a profit then no one would try to innovate, improve, create something better, create a better process, etc. Innovation, along with free trade, are the two keys to economic development. No company or individual would put in the blood, sweat and tears to create a product to improve the lives of people if they didn't think it would pay off for them in the end.

You need to qualify that statement. There are those who wants to put in the blood, sweat and tears to create a product to improve the lives of people, because it is the right thing to do.

[Furrowed Brow]

These countries are poor because they are not politically or economically free.

There are examples of countries that have not had political freedom but have still done well economically by your measure. Chile for example. Singapore too.

Sure, war and colonialism may have hindered their growth potential, but introducing free markets, free trade and democratic political institutions would undoubtedly make these countries richer.

I do not disagree it would create more wealth. But I'd question how it is done, who benefits most and least and who ends up exploited. Take Nigeria as one example where global oil companies have essential bribed the political class and extract the oil from Nigeria with very little of that profit finding its way to the majority of Nigerians who are poor. The oil companies are in the free market the poor are not. As another example take the Firestone Rubber company and its Liberian Rubber plantation. The plantations are run like medieval fiefdoms. The company is free to extract the rubber but workers are oppressed with 21hr working days and workers living in permanent dormitories etcetera. And so on... There are plenty of example of how the forces of capitalism prevent true economic freedom for everyone.

First of all, you do have the freedom to move to wherever you want to within your home country. I don't believe there are any restrictions of moving between England, Scotland and Wales, are there? Restrictions on mobility kick in when we begin looking at things on a country by country basis. You don't have the freedom to pack up your bags and freely move to the USA, or Russia. You first need to go through a series of obstacles in order to obtain citizenship for the country you're looking to move to.

The UK did not sign up to complete freedom of moment without a passport but for the majority of Europe it was possible to travel across border without a passport. The aim was to produce something much like you experience in the US travelling and trading between states.

The freedom of movement within the EU has been disastrous for Britain.

I would not call it disastrous. That would be to overstate it by several factors. True wages have gone into decline since 2008 and mass immigration has accentuated that trend. This is a concerning downside. It is true mass immigration has changed the timbre of many areas of the UK. It is likely true resentment of mass immigration helped tip the Brexit vote. On the whole a mixed bag with some negatives but I would not overstate it.

It is also highly questionable as to why one would even think it's OK to treat EU member nations as being completely identical to states within the United States. Sure,I can move from California to New York whenever I want to. But that's because California and New York are merely states that fall under the umbrella of one federal government.

Well yes, and so the direction of the natural drift of the EU project is obvious. Eventually there will be a EU federal government, that, or the whole venture will eventually collapse.

Second, most economists do believe in the free movement of labor. In fact, most economists support immigration based on the same reasons that they support free trade. I don't. The freedom to move product and commodities between countries is a good thing. The freedom to move labor and workers between countries, without any restriction, has its ups and downs. Clearly, a major downside would be the inability of these foreign workers to properly assimilate to the values of their host country.

I am not sure what "properly assimilate" means. I do know the British national dish has been Tikka Masala for many years now. The Brits eat more of it than any other meal. We love curry and curry houses are a firm fixture of every UK town. A small example of how Britain has assimilated foreign culture - and how some aspects of cultural values are plastic. It is true some far right organisation have tried to lever up the differences. They have gained more traction in recent years and old sores have opened again. Their ire is mostly aimed at Muslims rather than workers from Europe where the greatest numbers of immigrants are arriving from in the most recent years.

Free trade generally is associated with capitalism because socialist economies are managed and centrally planned, meaning that the pricing and allocation of goods and services is set by planning boards, not market forces. Free trade would necessarily alter and interfere with any type of socialist planning scheme.

I think you will struggle to find anyone these days who signs up to a fully centrally planned economy. Honestly those of us who swing left did also manage to watch the fall of the Soviet Union and can see the horror of North Korea to get the point. However mixed economies have been shown to be successful whilst operating within a democratic framework.

At this point, our dialogue is basically no different than a dialogue between a fundamentalist anti vaxxer and a doctor. I'm sure you can think of millions of different reasons, based on layman articles you've read, to argue that the fast paced growth of the 4 asian economies was not due to free markets.

That is not what I said or implied. I said there is a mixed history. Some if it is a toxic history. Some if it is socialistic. You gloss over this. But to be clear - I shall repeat the point that I concede free markets enables more trade and more trade increases wealth. My concern is that there is another side to this story that you gloss over and there are negative aspects to Capitalism. The major gripe is that it requires a permanent poor class somewhere and that not only does it not lift all boats it actively punches hole to ensure some boats remain leaky. The examples of Nigerian oil and Firestone are the kind of thing I have in mind along with all the examples of neo-colonialism touched on in previous posts. I'd also point you to the John Pilger documentary I looked in a previous post that looks at the example of Indonesia.

So yes yes I get your point capitalism given a free run is excellent at creating wealth and that it also raises the average working wage of poorer nations. I get that - but I am also saying there is a downside and that it creates permanent inequality and a permanent poor. Depending on what stage of capitalism we are talking about the levels of inequality adjust. For developing countries the poor may earn a bit more than a peasant and may gain from having stable political structures but essentially they are exploited and the quality of life is still poor and in many respects worse than being a peasant farmer. Workers committing suicide for example by throwing themselves off the roof of Foxconn factories at such regular intervals it required nets to catch them. But it is for the greater good I guess.

This is the nature of the disagreement as I see it:

• Capitalism makes a great omelette.
  But what about the broke eggs?
  What eggs?
  Those eggs.
  Don't worry about those eggs the omelette is great.
  But those eggs are people.
  Yeah Yeah but soon it will be better for everyone.
  But their dead now

However, the academic and consensus among people who are actually trained in this particular field is that free markets and capitalism allowed these 4 asian countries to experience unprecedented economic growth.

We seemed to be talking past one another. I can agree this point. Why do you think I do not? My complaint is that there is another side to the story of capitalism. You also ignore the point that Singapore tiger was steered by a socialist dictator and that there is a dark negative side to the Chile story of capitalism.

Why would business schools spend a bunch of time teaching the thoroughly debunked and falsified theories of Marxism?

Falsified? Hmm. Well as cheer leader for capitalism they would say that wouldn't they. Marxism is the only economic theory that is fully critical of capitalism it has it flaws true but then so do all the other economic theories.

Marxism is rejected by the mainstream for a reason. Schools teach Marxism only to the extent that is needed to have a holistic understanding of the history of economic thought. Of course we should all be at least tangentially familiar with an economic theory that has been responsible for the systematic murder of millions of people world wide, that way we won't repeat the mistakes of the past.

If we are gong to count dead bodies - who is the largest mass murderer over the last couple of hundred years. Answer: Queen Victoria. Well not her personally but the Victorian regime starved and killed more people to death than Stalin or Mao. Many tens of millions starved to death in deliberate famines in India. Then there was the Irish famine and so on... All this activity was done to protect the profits and interest of a capital owning class. Then there are the 80 or so coups, regime changes and attempted interventions by the US since WWII. Iraq was always a war about oil ...and so on. An estimate of about ten million innocent dead is a ball park figure (so far) for all those interventions which having nothing to do with bringing freedom and democracy and everything to do with capitalism. Chile is the paradigm. Indonesia too.

Sweat shops are the first step towards industrialization, and industrialization is the key to long run growth development.

It is the omelette argument then.

NO, that doesn't make me an advocate of people dying from work. NO, that doesn't mean I want to see workers suffer. It just means that realistically looking at the state of third world nations, the benefits of sweat shops tremendously outweigh the costs.

Not to the people in the sweat shops I wager. And whilst I may baulk at the argument I could almost buy into it if there were not so many examples of where there is no sign of an end to sweat shops and a permanent poor class. My point is that this is not down to a few bad people it is how capitalism always works.

There is another way but that way requires dismantling all these levers of neo-colonialism and the hegemony of the rich over the poor. But yes I have no realistic expectation of that ending any time soon.

Economists who have actually objectively analyzed the benefits of sweatshops understand this, including Paul Krugman.

Maybe their analysis would come out different if they spent a week working in one.

Socialism is the cause of poverty.

Tell that to Norway, France, Holland etcetera.

The poorest nations in the world are not economically free.

I guess you know that lack of economic freedom is not equivalent to socialism. Besides from the socialism you might find in most European countries there are socialistic business models like cooperatives and worker partnerships we have discussed in the past. These models welcome free trade - they are profit centres - but their business model provides much great power to everyone involved in the business. For example the head of the company is voted for not by shareholders but by the workforce. It the workers think the head of the company is doing a poor job they may vote him out.

The essence of capitalism, which is the entrepreneur, is criticized and vilified throughout Marx's works.

Not really. Quote a couple of passages to prove your point. Marx probably was offering a moral argument though many advocates would deny that and it was always foremost a critique of the contradictions of capitalism.

If no one wanted to make a profit then no one would try to innovate, improve, create something better, create a better process, etc.

This is not the binary argument you seem to want to make it. Yes profit is a motivation but when the control of capital is in the hands of the few capitalism tends to serve the interest of the few. At the level of mom n' pop businesses who serve the community they live in there is not so much a problem or at least the positive out weight the negative. And as I just pointed out cooperative are profit centres. The problem is how profits are distributed and in whose interests they are gained. Once we get to big oil, big pharma, banks, military-industrial, mining, and a host of other major sectors that are well beyond mom n' pop size businesses the contradiction and negative aspects of capitalism can be clearly seen.

...these "capitalists" are indirectly enriching the lives of every single person who buys their product.

Erm...really? How about cigarettes, or foods full of sugar and E numbers or Car companies hiding their emission figures or big pharma hiding negative research that undermines a new product, or how about all the banking scandals. In Britain billions have been paid outing in compensation by banks for miss-selling in multiple different scandals.

Putting the bad capitalism example aside the basic point that capitalism liberally spreads enrichment is still moot. Yes some people are enriched and often a lot of people are enriched. But not everyone and most everywhere I look there is a negative too. So obvious are the flaws the attractions of some form of mixed economy are equally obvious. That can be achieved without soviet style central planning. Nationalised utilities and healthcare and a nationalised bank and a tax system that promotes the cooperative business model is going to be the way forward. For the poorest countries investment that allows all the people of the country to share in the profits of the natural resources of that country in a meaningful way rather than those profits going to global corporations, political elite and a middle class living separate lives to the poor.

[Furrowed Brow]

Firstly, there is a difference between crime and capitalism. Capitalism under democracy and human rights tries to sanction crime.

Yes there is a difference but it is a matter of degree and general agreement as to what is deemed illegal. There were already laws and regulation against the Libor rate rigging. This was just one scandal. But only a couple of traders faced prosecution. It was clearly not a problem of a few bad apples but the system itself could not be prosecuted.A system that encouraged and wanted its traders to run a profit regardless of the legalities. There are many other kinds of examples which are clearly wrong but with no obvious legal path for redress. For example the war in Iraq was over control of the oil trade. There were never WMD that posed any threat. The war was clearly criminal by any decent moral code and maybe even actions actually illegal under some jurisdictions but it is highly unlikely anyone involved in bringing us to a war for oil will face prosecution. Or how about the socialism for the rich when the banks got their bail out. The list of shoddy behaviour that escape censure is long. And it is long because the powerful and wealthy are protected by the system. Occasionally if things get fraught someone will be thrown to the crowds. But that is about it.

Secondly, you can't blame all sorts of human behaviour on capitalism.

This is true. But we have to ask how the system works and for whose benefit and who is exploited and what kind of things become...if not exactly encouraged...at least common sense and normalised within the confines of that system.

Thirdly, "capitalism may serve to deliver profit to the capitalist" as long as the capitalist serves the market (and thereby the people).

False I think with a couple of non sequiturs in that sentence. A capitalist may happily chase profit whilst ruining the market. There are plenty of examples of big players seeking monopoly by dropping their prices to price out the competition to then raise prices once they have control of the market. Alternatively there is irrational exuberance of booms before the bust. The rush to seek profit serving just the few who manage to get out the the door first. Then there are factory owners moving their factories abroad chasing cheaper labour costs and taxation regimes. The unemployment and decline in wages that follow degrades the market the factory owner wants to sell to. And even if the capitalist serves the market this does not necessarily mean the people are served. Cigarette companies would be the obvious example. The market is served in the short term at the expense of cancer, heart disease and circulation problems later.

Fourthly, internet and other publishing opportunities now secure that the best ideas in a sense direct the World.

Maybe. Maybe not. You would need to expand this point.

Fifthly, even if "the tendency is for the rich to want to stay rich" (Thomas Piketty), it doesn't mean that (a lot of other) people can't get rich themselves.

Piketty points out the tendency of capital is to increase inequality and this trend is only reversed at those points of history when nations adopt socialistic policies.

In a capitalist system can anyone can get rich? - maybe but more likely not. The average person with average talents willing to put in an average days work and who has the average amount of luck is likely to not get rich.

"Principally,
1 Mn people service the same 1 Mn people, including oneself. Then 1 Mn services if individual services by administration of robots. Then this means 1 Mn $ income by 1 $ for each person served, affording 1 Mn products and services including the service to oneself.
Proof: Everyone can become dollar-millionaires on Earth and at the same time affording many products and services if not exactly 1 Mn services and products, i.e., living the life of a dollar-millionaire!
The future looks really BRIGHT!"

Well as I said the robots are indeed coming. It remains to be seen how different countries cope with that. But I think the system you are trying to describe is not capitalism. Under capitalism someone owns those robots and will want to sell or rent them at a profit. To distribute the wealth of robots to everyone still requires some form of socialism. Name a technological advance in which everyone shared in the profit? The industrial revolution got going with the invention of the steam engine, but the profits produced by the steam engine were not distributed equally to everyone. For every technology advance since then we can make the same point because capital does not share its profits. Uber are now very close to introducing a fleet of driverless cars. Somehow I don't think they will be sharing the profits of each automated car with the cab driver now out of work. So my point is that when the robots come capitalism will work as it has always worked and that is to to ensure we don't all share in the profits. I tend to be a bit of a Luddite and way more pessimistic. Once AI and robots are fully established there will be mass unemployment. New innovations will not be able to make up the difference quickly. The social dislocation that follows will lead to authoritarian clampdowns. Let's hope I am wrong.

"Finally, the capitalism isn't the problem. The (rife) crime is the problem and corruption with it with subversion of the politics, the political system, and the media as result.

We'll agree to disagree on that point. For there to be corruption someone has to be rich enough to make a bribe. But even if we talk about the legal aspects of capitalism I think the reasons I have just given above as to why capitalism cannot tolerate the world of robots you envision is the reason why capitalsm is the problem.

(Besides, I have a suggestion for corporate tax system in rewarding companies that hire a lot of people with low taxes and companies that only have robots to be taxed harder. This way one can fight unemployment and more people can take part in creative, productive life.)

I think we are going to see a lot of ideas much like this one raised in the near future as countries try and work out how to cope with the robot revolution.

[Furrowed Brow]

...wealth is not a zero sum game. While it is true that there are only so many natural resources currently on the Earth, resources can be used in a more productive manner than they are now. Innovations increase the efficiency of resources, thus creating new wealth rather than taking wealth from others.

Don't think that addresses the question how wealth is or is not a zero sum game. Greater efficiency does not mean greater or comparable wealth distribution. Take the US for example. For 150 years wages increased in real terms. During this phase of America capitalism wealth accumulation does not look like a zero sum game. When the mean standard of living continues to rise things look rosy. then came the 1970s and wage stagnation. Stagnating wages occurred whilst efficiency gains continued and corporations continued to make profits. If the cost of living became cheaper through all those efficiency gains then maybe it is not a zero sum game. But when the loss in wages is made up with an increase in personal debt as happened in the US and many other countries there is a zero sum game being played.

Another example: A certain well known distribution company is notorious for how it tags its warehouse workers. The system monitors how fast the worker moves around the warehouse. The system has made efficiency gains for the company but the extra profit is not passed back to the worker through their wages. This is an example where extra wealth derived through innovation and an efficiency gain is a zero sum game.

Another example: automated number plate recognition and car parking at shopping centre, supermarkets etcetera. Not sure if this is an issue in the US but it is in the UK. Automated systems mean that shoppers now face fines usually over £50 for overstaying a car park by even a minute. Clear example of zero sum game being played here as the rentier class use automation to squeeze ever more profit from the rest of us.

As a rule of thumb any society experiencing a rise in inequality where the wealth of the richest layer of society is increasing but the wealth of the lower layers are stagnating or even decliing - there is a zero sum game being played.

[help3434]

Another example: A certain well known distribution company is notorious for how it tags its warehouse workers. The system monitors how fast the worker moves around the warehouse. The system has made efficiency gains for the company but the extra profit is not passed back to the worker through their wages. This is an example where extra wealth derived through innovation and an efficiency gain is a zero sum game.

The wealth increase not being passed to the worker is sad but not an example of a zero sum game. It would only a zero sum game if the workers lost the exact amount the company gained.

[help3434]

Another example: automated number plate recognition and car parking at shopping centre, supermarkets etcetera. Not sure if this is an issue in the US but it is in the UK. Automated systems mean that shoppers now face fines usually over £50 for overstaying a car park by even a minute. .

That system makes it easier to find an open parking spot does it not? It sound more like a problem with living in a crowded urban environment than a problem of profit squeezing.

[Furrowed Brow]

That system makes it easier to find an open parking spot does it not? It sound more like a problem with living in a crowded urban environment than a problem of profit squeezing.

I'd definitely say it is an example of the rentier form of capitalism. Usually the shopping centre sell the right to collect parking fees and fines to specialist companies. This way the business that owns the land squeeze more profit from their assets. The fine collecting company is motivated purely by profit and getting a return on the money it has paid for the right to collect payments. If the motive truly was solving a problem of allocating parking spaces then the same technology could easily be tuned so not to create charges for off peak usage. This never happens for these kinds of business models. Moreover besides from maybe a couple of weeks approaching christmas these car parks are hardly ever 100% full and that was true before the introduction of licence plate recognition technology.

An interesting caveat is that the law was changed a few years ago that meant that companies could not raise fines like this for cars parked on private land. The law was changed because of the mushrooming of car clamping firms (often run by the kind of men who also work security on night clubs). These kinds of outfits would clamp cars demanding hundreds of pounds to remove the clamp. Often warning signs were small and obscured. This practice has now been stamped on. So now only a softer form of rent collecting is allowed. When the fine is raised it has the legal standing of an invoice. The strategy of the parking companies is to exploit ignorance of the shopper over the distinction and send threatening letters that escalate in the level of threat. But these threats are not what they seem. It is true the company could eventually take the driver to a small claims court and maybe retrieve the original face value of the fine but it is questionable they will retrieve all the costs added on as the threat is escalated. Often the company will pursue a driver with nasty letters but it is not so usual for them to bother with the small claims court as there is a potential cost to them. The objective is to get the driver to pay the invoice via threats of the dire financial consequences of failure to pay. So they keep sending increasingly aggressive letters which often are mostly just empty threats. This rent collecting relies on a steady supply of people who have tendency to obey rules and authority and fear the hassle and threat of the negative consequences and whom just want the whole mess to go away.. Those that don't just get caught in a series of letter that threaten increasing costs but the process often (though not always) leads no where. It is a form of extortion and the whole practice is shoddy. Though not as shoddy as the old days of car clamping.

[2ndRateMind]

I am not. That is capitalism. If it is so virtuous on a micro scale, why is it not a good thing on a larger scale?

Because scale alienates. If entry to a market takes a $million, or a $billion, then only the very rich can enter that market, and the rest of us must scavenge for a living. And, it seems, be grateful for our jobs, however much the rich might exploit our labour.

On the other hand, if the capital necessary is a mere $100, or $1000, the net result tends to be a thriving local economy, self-reliant people, and minimal impact on the environment.

Best wishes, 2RM.