ZH: Jim Grant Must Watch: "Capitalism Is An Alternative For What We Have Now"

[Lucille]

Our would-be Fed Chairman.

Jim Grant Must Watch: "Capitalism Is An Alternative For What We Have Now" (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/jim-grant-must-watch-capitalism-alternative-what-we-have-now)



Maria Bartiromo: "What are the alternatives?"

Jim Grant: "Capitalism is an alternative for what we have now. I highly recommend it."

Maria: "We all do."

Grant: "No we don't."

Maria: "The Federal Reserve may not."

Grant: "We ought to be discussing an intelligent move to a sound currency, by which I mean a currency that is based on a standard, and not at the whim and the discretion of a bunch of mandarins sitting around Washington D.C."

In other news, Joseph Stalin has never been happier in his grave that Ben Bernanke has decided to shoulder the legacy of central planning...

[RiseAgainst]

Capitalism is what we have now.

[The Gold Standard]

Capitalism is what we have now.

In what country do you live?

[RiseAgainst]

In what country do you live?

Reality.

http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/MarketsNotCapitalism-e1318616277452.jpg

There are at least three distinguishable senses of “capitalism”:[2]

capitalism-1
an economic system that features property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.

capitalism-2
an economic system that features a symbiotic relationship between big business and government.

capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]

Capitalism-1 just is a freed market; so if “anti-capitalism” meant opposition to capitalism-1, “free-market anti-capitalism” would be oxymoronic. But proponents of free-market anti-capitalism aren’t opposed to capitalism-1; instead, they object either to capitalism-2 or to both capitalism-2 and capitalism-3.[4]

Many people seem to operate with definitions that combine elements from these distinct senses of “capitalism.” Both enthusiasts for and critics of capitalism seem too often to mean by it something like “an economic system that features personal property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services — and therefore, predictably, also rule by capitalists.” I think there is good reason to challenge the assumption that dominance by a small number of wealthy people is in any sense a likely feature of a freed market. Such dominance, I suggest, is probable only when force and fraud impede economic freedom.

[tttppp]

Capitalism is what we have now.

Unless you are being sarcastic, you either don't know much about capitalism or about this country's economic system.

[The Gold Standard]

Reality.

http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/MarketsNotCapitalism-e1318616277452.jpg

There are at least three distinguishable senses of “capitalism”:[2]

capitalism-1
an economic system that features property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services.

capitalism-2
an economic system that features a symbiotic relationship between big business and government.

capitalism-3
rule — of workplaces, society, and (if there is one) the state — by capitalists (that is, by a relatively small number of people who control investable wealth and the means of production).[3]

Capitalism-1 just is a freed market; so if “anti-capitalism” meant opposition to capitalism-1, “free-market anti-capitalism” would be oxymoronic. But proponents of free-market anti-capitalism aren’t opposed to capitalism-1; instead, they object either to capitalism-2 or to both capitalism-2 and capitalism-3.[4]

Many people seem to operate with definitions that combine elements from these distinct senses of “capitalism.” Both enthusiasts for and critics of capitalism seem too often to mean by it something like “an economic system that features personal property rights and voluntary exchanges of goods and services — and therefore, predictably, also rule by capitalists.” I think there is good reason to challenge the assumption that dominance by a small number of wealthy people is in any sense a likely feature of a freed market. Such dominance, I suggest, is probable only when force and fraud impede economic freedom.

Ok, a semantic argument. Those are always worthwhile. If by capitalism you mean free market economy then no we don't have it. If you mean definitions 2 and 3 (which are really the same anyway because you can't have the means of production so concentrated without state coercion on the "capitalists" behalf), then sure, we have a capitalist country.

[RiseAgainst]

Unless you are being sarcastic, you either don't know much about capitalism or about this country's economic system.

:rolleyes:

[RiseAgainst]

Ok, a semantic argument. Those are always worthwhile. If by capitalism you mean free market economy then no we don't have it. If you mean definitions 2 and 3 (which are really the same anyway because you can't have the means of production so concentrated without state coercion on the "capitalists" behalf), then sure, we have a capitalist country.

It's far far more important than semantics. Dialectics is the name of the game, it is being used to drive us apart when we should be coming together. Whether it's what 'you' or 'I' believe is capitalism or not is irelevant, the corporatocracy of America is inextricably linked with capitalism, and unless that is what you aim to perpetuate, you would do well to distance yourself from it.

[The Gold Standard]

I know what you are saying, and I usually use the term free market instead of capitalism because of the general ignorance of people. I don't know that it is used to divide us though. I think the general lack of understanding of a free market and also our current fascist set up is what turns some people off.

[Voluntary Man]

Capitalism is what we have now.

Thank you!

It is true that we live in a Capitalist country -- which is not to suggest that we live in a free country. Too many Americans use the words "capitalism" and "democracy" as synonyms for "liberty" and "free markets"; they are far from identical. When I was coming up, we used to talk about "capitalism vs. communism," as if they were opposites; they aren't. Contemporary America is every bit as marxist as it is capitalistic. Look at China. We have been trained to accept the system we have as if it were freedom.
The word "capitalism" was even invented and defined by Marx.

[tttppp]

Thank you!

It is true that we live in a Capitalist country -- which is not to suggest that we live in a free country. Too many Americans use the words "capitalism" and "democracy" as synonyms for "liberty" and "free markets"; they are far from identical. When I was coming up, we used to talk about "capitalism vs. communism," as if they were opposites; they aren't. Contemporary America is every bit as marxist as it is capitalistic. Look at China. We have been trained to accept the system we have as if it were freedom.
The word "capitalism" was even invented and defined by Marx.

When I went to school we were taught that capitalism was the same thing as free markets. When I took economics classes, they were based on free market theories and it was taught that that is what we have.

After I started to think for myself, I realized we don't have free markets. In most industries we have government dictated solutions which are very similar to communism or fascism. I'm not sure what definition of capitalism you guys are using, but the capitalism we have today is not free markets.

[LawnWake]

Bah, we're definitely capitalist. As was the Soviet Union. State-capitalist to be exact. But in the context of his argument, you know that he's refering to free market capitalism and it's really silly to start arguing semantics over that. Definitions change. What was called 'capitalism' at the time of Marx would now be defined as 'state capitalism'. The 'free market' definition we have didn't emerge til like... I think the 1920s. And that's the definition Austrians mostly use.

[LawnWake]

Bah, we're definitely capitalist. As was the Soviet Union. State-capitalist to be exact. But in the context of his argument, you know that he's refering to free market capitalism and it's really silly to start arguing semantics over that. Definitions change. What was called 'capitalism' at the time of Marx would now be defined as 'state capitalism'. The 'free market' definition we have didn't emerge til like... I think the 1920s. And that's the definition Austrians mostly use.

[A Son of Liberty]

I guess it's not silly to argue over it. If you notice, it is a pattern for words to essentially lose their definitions over time. Liberal used to mean "one who advocates for individual liberty"; now it's "one who advocates for regulation of markets".

Conservative has basically lost it's meaning, too - it used to mean, "one who advocates for limited government"; yet we seen people like Romney, Santorum and Gingrich being called conservative, and calling themselves conservative, yet advocating for regulation of markets... and calling the one guy who actually fits the definition - Ron Paul - decidedly NOT a conservative.

Same goes with Capitalism.