Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. Investing in a Bubble Mania Stock Market Trending Towards Financial Crisis 2.0 CRASH! - 9th Sep 21
2.Tech Stocks Bubble Valuations 2000 vs 2021 - 25th Sep 21
3.Stock Market FOMO Going into Crash Season - 8th Oct 21
4.Stock Market FOMO Hits September Brick Wall - Evergrande China's Lehman's Moment - 22nd Sep 21
5.Crypto Bubble BURSTS! BTC, ETH, XRP CRASH! NiceHash Seizes Funds on Account Halting ALL Withdrawals! - 19th May 21
6.How to Protect Your Self From a Stock Market CRASH / Bear Market? - 14th Oct 21
7.AI Stocks Portfolio Buying and Selling Levels Going Into Market Correction - 11th Oct 21
8.Why Silver Price Could Crash by 20%! - 5th Oct 21
9.Powell: Inflation Might Not Be Transitory, After All - 3rd Oct 21
10.Global Stock Markets Topped 60 Days Before the US Stocks Peaked - 23rd Sep 21
Last 7 days
CATHY WOOD ARK GARBAGE ARK Funds Heading for 90% STOCK CRASH! - 22nd Jan 22
Gold Is the Belle of the Ball. Will Its Dance Turn Bearish? - 22nd Jan 22
Best Neighborhoods to Buy Real Estate in San Diego - 22nd Jan 22
Stock Market January PANIC AI Tech Stocks Buying Opp - Trend Forecast 2022 - 21st Jan 21
How to Get Rich in the MetaVerse - 20th Jan 21
Should you Buy Payment Disruptor Stocks in 2022? - 20th Jan 21
2022 the Year of Smart devices, Electric Vehicles, and AI Startups - 20th Jan 21
Oil Markets More Animated by Geopolitics, Supply, and Demand - 20th Jan 21
WARNING - AI STOCK MARKET CRASH / BEAR SWITCH TRIGGERED! - 19th Jan 22
Fake It Till You Make It: Will Silver’s Motto Work on Gold? - 19th Jan 22
Crude Oil Smashing Stocks - 19th Jan 22
US Stagflation: The Global Risk of 2022 - 19th Jan 22
Stock Market Trend Forecast Early 2022 - Tech Growth Value Stocks Rotation - 18th Jan 22
Stock Market Sentiment Speaks: Are We Setting Up For A 'Mini-Crash'? - 18th Jan 22
Mobile Sports Betting is on a rise: Here’s why - 18th Jan 22
Exponential AI Stocks Mega-trend - 17th Jan 22
THE NEXT BITCOIN - 17th Jan 22
Gold Price Predictions for 2022 - 17th Jan 22
How Do Debt Relief Services Work To Reduce The Amount You Owe? - 17th Jan 22
RIVIAN IPO Illustrates We are in the Mother of all Stock Market Bubbles - 16th Jan 22
All Market Eyes on Copper - 16th Jan 22
The US Dollar Had a Slip-Up, but Gold Turned a Blind Eye to It - 16th Jan 22
A Stock Market Top for the Ages - 16th Jan 22
FREETRADE - Stock Investing Platform, the Good, Bad and Ugly Review, Free Shares, Cancelled Orders - 15th Jan 22
WD 14tb My Book External Drive Unboxing, Testing and Benchmark Performance Amazon Buy Review - 15th Jan 22
Toyland Ferris Wheel Birthday Fun at Gulliver's Rother Valley UK Theme Park 2022 - 15th Jan 22
What You Should Know About a TailoredPay High Risk Merchant Account - 15th Jan 22
Best Metaverse Tech Stocks Investing for 2022 and Beyond - 14th Jan 22
Gold Price Lagging Inflation - 14th Jan 22
Get Your Startup Idea Up And Running With These 7 Tips - 14th Jan 22
What Happens When Your Flight Gets Cancelled in the UK? - 14th Jan 22
How to Profit from 2022’s Biggest Trend Reversal - 11th Jan 22
Stock Market Sentiment Speaks: Are We Ready To Drop To 4400SPX? - 11th Jan 22
What's the Role of an Affiliate Marketer? - 11th Jan 22
Essential Things To Know Before You Set Up A Limited Liability Company - 11th Jan 22
NVIDIA THE KING OF THE METAVERSE! - 10th Jan 22
Fiscal and Monetary Cliffs Have Arrived - 10th Jan 22
The Meteoric Rise of Investing in Trading Cards - 10th Jan 22
IBM The REAL Quantum Metaverse STOCK! - 9th Jan 22
WARNING Failing NVME2 M2 SSD Drives Can Prevent Systems From Booting - Corsair MP600 - 9th Jan 22
The Fed’s inflated cake and a ‘quant’ of history - 9th Jan 22
NVME M2 SSD FAILURE WARNING Signs - Corsair MP600 1tb Drive - 9th Jan 22
Meadowhall Sheffield Christmas Lights 2021 Shopping - Before the Switch on - 9th Jan 22
How Does Insurance Work In Europe? Find Out Here - 9th Jan 22
MATTERPORT (MTTR) - DIGITIZING THE REAL WORLD - METAVERSE INVESTING 2022 - 7th Jan 22
Effect of Deflation On The Gold Price - 7th Jan 22
Stock Market 2022 Requires Different Strategies For Traders/Investors - 7th Jan 22
Old Man Winter Will Stimulate Natural Gas and Heating Oil Demand - 7th Jan 22
Is The Lazy Stock Market Bull Strategy Worth Considering? - 7th Jan 22
METAVERSE - NEW LIFE FOR SONY AGEING GAMING GIANT? - 6th Jan 2022
What Elliott Waves Show for Asia Pacific Stock and Financial Markets 2022 - 6th Jan 2022
Why You Should Register Your Company - 6th Jan 2022
4 Ways to Invest in Silver for 2022 - 6th Jan 2022
UNITY (U) - Metaverse Stock Analysis Investing for 2022 and Beyond - 5th Jan 2022
Stock Market Staving Off Risk-Off - 5th Jan 2022
Gold and Silver Still Hungover After New Year’s Eve - 5th Jan 2022
S&P 500 In an Uncharted Territory, But Is Sky the Limit? - 5th Jan 2022

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

How to Protect your Wealth by Investing in AI Tech Stocks

The Wealth of the 1percent Provides the Standard of Living of the 99percent

Politics / US Politics Oct 25, 2011 - 09:02 AM GMT

By: George_Reisman

Politics

Diamond Rated - Best Financial Markets Analysis ArticleThe protesters in the Occupy Wall Street movement and its numerous clones elsewhere in the country and around the world chant that 1 percent of the population owns all the wealth and lives at the expense of the remaining 99 percent. The obvious solution that they imply is for the 99 percent to seize the wealth of the 1 percent and use it for their benefit rather than allowing it to continue to be used for the benefit of the 1 percent, who are allegedly undeserving greedy capitalist exploiters. In other words, the implicit program of the protesters is that of socialism and the redistribution of wealth.


Putting aside the hyperbole in the movement's claim, it is true that a relatively small minority of people does own the far greater part of the wealth of the country. The figures "1 percent" and "99 percent," however exaggerated, serve to place that fact in the strongest possible light.

What the protesters do not realize is that the wealth of the 1 percent provides the standard of living of the 99 percent.

The protesters have no awareness of this, because they see the world through an intellectual lens that is inappropriate to life under capitalism and its market economy. They see a world, still present in some places, and present everywhere a few centuries ago, of self-sufficient farm families, each producing for its own consumption and having no essential connection to markets.

In such a world, if one sees a farmer's field, or his barn, or plow, or draft animals, and asks who do these means of production serve, the answer is the farmer and his family, and no one else. In such a world, apart from the receipt of occasional charity from the owners, those who are not owners of means of production cannot benefit from means of production unless and until they themselves somehow become owners of means of production. They cannot benefit from other people's means of production except by inheriting them or by seizing them.

In the world of the protesters, means of production have the same essential status as consumers' goods, which as a rule are of benefit only to their owners. It is because of this that those who share the mentality of the protesters typically depict capitalists as fat men, whose plates are heaped high with food, while the masses of wage earners must live near starvation. According to this mentality, the redistribution of wealth is a matter merely of taking from the overflowing plates of the capitalists and giving to the starving workers.

Contrary to such beliefs, in the modern world in which we actually live, the wealth of the capitalists is simply not in the form of consumers' goods to any great extent. Not only is it overwhelmingly in the form of means of production, but those means of production are employed in the production of goods and services that are sold in the market. Totally unlike the conditions of self-sufficient farm families, the physical beneficiaries of the capitalists' means of production are all the members of the general consuming public who buy the capitalists' products.

For example, without owning so much as a single share of stock in General Motors or Exxon Mobil, everyone in a capitalist economy who buys the products of these firms benefits from their means of production: the buyer of a GM automobile benefits from the GM factory that produced that automobile; the buyer of Exxon's gasoline benefits from its oil wells, pipelines, and tanker trucks. Furthermore, everyone benefits from their means of production who buys the products of the customers of GM or Exxon, insofar as their means of production indirectly contribute to the products of their customers. For example, the patrons of grocery stores whose goods are delivered in trucks made by GM or fueled by diesel oil produced in Exxon's refineries are beneficiaries of the existence of GM's truck factories and Exxon's refineries. Even everyone who buys the products of the competitors of GM and Exxon, or of the customers of those competitors, benefits from the existence of GM's and Exxon's means of production. This is because GM's and Exxon's means of production result in a more abundant and thus lower-priced supply of the kind of goods the competitors sell.

"The physical beneficiaries of the capitalists' means of production are all the members of the general consuming public who buy the capitalists' products."

In other words, all of us, 100 percent of us, benefit from the wealth of the hated capitalists. We benefit without ourselves being capitalists, or being capitalists to any great extent. The protesters are literally kept alive on the foundation of the wealth of the capitalists they hate. As just indicated, the oil fields and pipelines of the hated Exxon corporation provide the fuel that powers the tractors and trucks that are essential to the production and delivery of the food the protesters eat. The protesters and all other haters of capitalists hate the foundations of their own existence.

The benefit of the capitalists' means of production to non-owners of means of production extends not only to the buyers of the products of those means of production but also to the sellers of the labor that is employed to work with those means of production. The wealth of the capitalists, in other words, is the source both of the supply of products that non-owners of the means of production buy and of the demand for the labor that non-owners of the means of production sell. It follows that the larger the number and greater the wealth of the capitalists, the greater is both the supply of products and the demand for labor, and thus the lower are prices and the higher are wages, i.e., the higher is the standard of living of everyone. Nothing is more to the self-interest of the average person than to live in a society that is filled with multibillionaire capitalists and their corporations, all busy using their vast wealth to produce the products he buys and to compete for the labor he sells.

Nevertheless, the world the protesters yearn for is a world from which the billionaire capitalists and their corporations have been banished, replaced by small, poor producers, who would not be significantly richer than they themselves are, which is to say, impoverished. They expect that in a world of such producers, producers who lack the capital required to produce very much of anything, let alone carry on the mass production of the technologically advanced products of modern capitalism, they will somehow be economically better off than they are now. Obviously, the protesters could not be more deluded.

In addition to not realizing that the wealth of the so-called 1 percent is the foundation of the standard of living of the so-called 99 percent, what the protesters also do not realize is that the "greed" of those who seek to become part of the 1 percent, or to enlarge their position within it, is what serves progressively to improve the standard of living of the 99 percent.

Of course, this does not apply to wealth that has been acquired by such means as obtaining government subsidies or preventing competition through protective tariffs and other forms of government intervention. These are methods that are made possible to the extent that the government is permitted to depart from a policy of strict laissez-faire and thereby arbitrarily reward or punish firms.

Apart from such aberrations, the way that business fortunes are accumulated is by means of the high profits generated by the introduction of new and improved products and more efficient, lower-cost methods of production, followed by the heavy saving and reinvestment of those high profits.

"All of us, 100 percent of us, benefit from the wealth of the hated capitalists."

For example, the $6 billion fortune of the late Steve Jobs was built on a foundation of Mr. Jobs having made it possible for Apple Computer to introduce such new and improved products as the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and then heavily saving and reinvesting the share of the profits that came to him.

Two closely related points need to be stressed. First, the fortunes that are accumulated in this way generally serve in the larger-scale production of the very sort of products that provided the profits out of which their accumulation took place. Thus, for example, Jobs's billions serve largely in the production of Apple's products. Similarly, old Henry Ford's great personal fortune, earned on the foundation of introducing major improvements in the efficiency of automobile production, which brought down the price of a new automobile from about $10,000 at the beginning of the 20th Century to $300 in the mid 1920s, was used to make possible the production of millions of Ford automobiles.

Second, the high rates of profit earned on new and improved products and methods of production are temporary. As soon as the production of the new product or use of the new method of production becomes the norm in an industry, it no longer provides any exceptional profitability. Indeed, further improvements again and again render earlier improvements downright unprofitable. For example, the first generation of the iPhone, which was highly profitable just a few years ago, is or soon will be unprofitable, because further advances have rendered it obsolete.

As a result, the accumulation of great business fortunes generally requires the introduction of a series of improvements in products or methods of production. This is what is required to maintain a high rate of profit in the face of competition. For example, Intel's ability to maintain its high rate of profit over the years has depended on its ability to introduce one substantial improvement in its computer chips after another. The net effect has been that computer users have gotten the benefit of improvement after improvement not only at no rise but a drastic decline in the prices of computer chips. Insofar as high profits rest on low costs of production, competition drives prices down to correspond to the lower level of costs, which necessitates the achievement of still further cost reductions to maintain high profits.

The same outcome, of course, applies not only to Intel and microprocessors but also to the rest of the computer industry, where gigabytes of memory and terabytes of hard-drive data storage now sell at prices below the prices of megabytes of memory and hard-drive data storage just a couple of decades ago. Indeed, if one knows how to look, the principle of ever more and better products for less and less applies throughout the economic system. It is present in the production of food, clothing, and shelter as well as in the high-tech industries, and in virtually all industries in between.

"The protesters are literally kept alive on the foundation of the wealth of the capitalists they hate."

It is present in these industries even though the government's inflation of the money supply has caused the prices of their products to rise sharply over the years. Despite this, when calculated in terms of the amount of labor the average person must expend in order to earn the wages needed to enable him to buy these products, their prices have sharply fallen.

This can be seen in the fact that today, the average worker works 40 hours per week, while a worker of a century or so ago worked 60 hours a week. For the 40 hours he works, the average worker of today receives the goods and services comprising the average standard of living of 2011, which includes such things as an automobile, refrigerator, air conditioner, central heating, more and better living space, more and better food and clothing, modern medicine and dentistry, motion pictures, a computer, cell phone, television set, washer-dryer, microwave oven, and so on. The average worker of 1911 either did not have these things at all or had much less of them and of poorer quality.

If we describe the goods and services received by the average worker of today for his 40 hours of labor as being 10 times as great as those received by the average worker of 1911 for his 60 hours of labor, then it follows that, expressed in terms of the amount of labor that needs to be performed today in order to be able to buy goods and services equivalent to the standard of living of 1911, prices have fallen to two-thirds of one-tenth of their level in 1911, i.e., to one-fifteenth of their level in 1911, which is to say, by 93 1/3 percent.

Capitalism — laissez-faire capitalism — is the ideal economic system. It is the embodiment of individual freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest. Its result is the progressive rise in the material well-being of all, manifested in lengthening life spans and ever-improving standards of living.

The economic stagnation and decline, the problems of mass unemployment and growing poverty experienced in the United States in recent years, are the result of violations of individual freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest. The government has enmeshed the economic system in a growing web of paralyzing rules and regulations that prohibit the production of goods and services that people want, while compelling the production of goods and services they don't want, and making the production of virtually everything more and more expensive than it needs to be. For example, prohibitions on the production of atomic power, oil, coal, and natural gas, make the cost of energy higher and in the face of less energy available for use in production, require the performance of more human labor to produce any given quantity of goods. This results in fewer goods being available to remunerate the performance of any given quantity of labor.

Uncontrolled government spending and its accompanying budget deficits and borrowing, along with the income, estate, and capital gains taxes, all levied on funds that otherwise would have been heavily saved and invested, drain capital from the economic system. They thus serve to prevent the increase in both the supply of goods and the demand for labor that more capital in the hands of business would have made possible. They have now gone far enough to have begun actually to reduce the supply of capital in the economic system in comparison with the past.

"It turns out that virtually all of the problems the Occupy Wall Street protesters complain about are the result of the enactment of policies that they support and in which they fervently believe."

Capital accumulation is also impaired, and can ultimately be turned into capital decumulation, through the effects of additional government regulation in raising the costs of production and thus reducing its efficiency. This applies to practically all of the regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and the various other government agencies. The effect of their regulations is that for any given amount of labor performed in the economic system, there is less product than would otherwise be produced.

Now anything that serves to reduce the ability to produce in general serves also to reduce the ability to produce capital goods in particular. Because of such government interference, any given amount of labor and capital goods devoted to the production of capital goods results in a smaller output of capital goods, just as any given quantity of labor and capital goods devoted to the production of consumers' goods results in a smaller output of consumers' goods. At a minimum, the reduced supply of capital goods produced serves to reduce the rate of economic progress. A reduction in the supply of capital goods produced great enough to prevent the addition of any increment to the previously existing supply of capital goods, and thus to put an end to capital accumulation, brings economic progress to a complete halt. A still greater reduction, one that renders the supply of capital goods produced less than the supply being used up in production, constitutes capital decumulation and thus a decline in the economic system's ability to produce. As indicated, the United States already appears to be at this point.

The problem of capital decumulation has been greatly compounded as the result of massive credit expansion induced by the Federal Reserve System and its policy of easy money and artificially low interest rates. This policy led first to a great stock-market bubble and then a vast housing bubble, as large quantities of newly created money poured into the stock market and later the housing market. Between these two bubbles, trillions of dollars of capital were lost. In both instances, vast overconsumption occurred as people raced to buy such things as new automobiles, major appliances, vacations, and all kinds of luxury goods that they would not have believed they could afford in the absence of the effects of credit expansion, often incurring substantial debt in the process.

In the one case, it was the artificial rise in stock prices that misled people into believing that they could afford these things. In the other, it was the artificial rise in home prices that produced this result. The seeming wealth vanished with the fall in stock prices and then again, later, with the fall in housing prices. In the housing bubble, moreover, millions of homes were constructed for people who could not afford to pay for them. All of this represented a huge loss of capital and thus of the ability of business to produce and to employ labor. It is this loss of capital that is responsible for our present problem of mass unemployment.

Despite this loss of capital, unemployment could be eliminated. But given the loss of capital, what would be required to accomplish this is a fall in wage rates. This fall, however, is made virtually illegal as the result of the existence of minimum-wage laws and pro-union legislation. These laws prevent employers from offering the lower wage rates at which the unemployed would be reemployed.

Thus, however ironic it may be, it turns out that virtually all of the problems the Occupy Wall Street protesters complain about are the result of the enactment of policies that they support and in which they fervently believe. It is their mentality, the Marxism that permeates it, and the government policies that are the result, that are responsible for what they complain about. The protesters are, in effect, in the position of being unwitting flagellants. They are beating themselves left and right and as balm for their wounds they demand more whips and chains. They do not see this, because they have not learned to make the connection that in violating the freedom of businessmen and capitalists and seizing and consuming their wealth, i.e., using weapons of pain and suffering against this small hated group, they are destroying the basis of their own well-being.

However much the protesters might deserve to suffer as the result of the injury caused by the enactment of their very own ideas, it would be far better, if they woke up to the modern world and came to understand the actual nature of capitalism, and then directed their ire at the targets that deserve it. In that case, they might make some real contribution to economic well-being, including their own.

George Reisman, Ph.D., is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996). His web site is www.capitalism.net. His blog is at www.georgereisman.com/blog/. Send him mail. (A PDF replica of the complete book Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics can be downloaded to the reader's hard drive simply by clicking on the book’s title, immediately preceding, and then saving the file when it appears on the screen. ) See George Reisman's article archives.

© 2011 Copyright Ludwig von Mises - All Rights Reserved Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.


© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Comments

Steve
25 Oct 11, 16:43
The 1%

You are delusional - most of the 99% don't look through any type of lens they just fight to survive. While the priveleged 1% drop a couple of hundred dollars on dinner two thirds of the world get by on under $5 a day. Your day of reckoning is coming. Imagine a world where your dollars are worthless and your emeritus status is irrelevant. I will take your food, shelter and resources by force unless you find the will to challenge and overcome me. Then more resourceful threats will come. Your days are numbered. Please treat this as a joke, irrelevancy, omen or whatever. It will make no difference in the long run. I have studied all of the great civilisations from the past and they all end in one violent fashion and it is always guys like you that perish first.


Steve
25 Oct 11, 16:52
Retort

Apple's product are mainly built at an enormous factory complex in China owned by Foxconn where they have had to install netting around the roof areas in order to reduce the very high rate of suicide. Please advise which part of this reality fits in with your dystopian capitalist fantasy.


Steve
25 Oct 11, 17:01
99percent

I do not own a single share in BP. I am forced to pay £1.39 per litre for unleaded petrol at a BP filling station. If I lived in Venezuela I would pay 2p for the same litre of petrol. The difference is composed of enormous profits for BP and gargantuan taxes for the UK government. Because I have to pay this much for fuel my mileage expense claims to the company I work for are paid at 45p per mile so I get double my expenditure back in expenses. This in turn reduces their profits and corporation tax. If anyone has a workable theory how this is an efficient method of organising things I would love to hear it.


Steve
25 Oct 11, 17:16
Automation

The so-called "Emeritus" professor disregards the onslaught of technology when dissembling the goods vs labour statistics and telling us we get ten times as much for a tenth of the labour. If we look back to when we were but monkeys or indeed single celled organisms we did not have a need for 3D 50" plasma tv's or superfast broadband. In fact every generation can be said to be spending a significant part of it's income on something that didn't exist in the previous one. Dear prof - this is called "progress" and it is an ongoing evolutionary process.


RossWild
25 Oct 11, 19:11
Capitalism without Socialism, OK

I agree about what Capitalism means, but if you say that "...the 1 percent provides the standard of living of the 99 percent..." and they are not awareness and want some way of Socialism, I have to remember that the losses of the 1% were in fact 'socialized' with everyone taxes, nation wealth (everyone's wealth), lost of incomes, lost of jobs, lost of houses and go on...


Reverse R Hood
25 Oct 11, 19:16
The 99%

Wow, you don't get the 99% at all-- They see that big Agribusiness gets their money to subsidize their operations while numerous road-blocks are put up that crush small local farmers.

They see that Big Oil gets the most expensive military in the world to protect their shipping and drilling grounds (and the fact that the 1% rarely die fighting for it).

They see GM get a bailout while they outsource work to communist countries.

They see that Big Finance destroyed the World Economy and now gets a 16 Trillion guarantee at their expense... while they go homeless.

They see politicians sell out to the highest bidder while they have no voice.

They see the inaction enforcing law against the Banksters.

They see the system and how it’s rigged against them.

Henry Ford’s brilliance was in producing a product that his workers could afford.

Nobody in the 99% is even suggesting they take more than a fare share from the likes of honest men making an honest, productive living..

But when they witness the non-productive parasites that are busy redistributing the wealth of the truly productive, well then they wish guys like Steve, ‘God Speed.’


Pat
25 Oct 11, 19:29
Exploitation

Your paper is a smoke screen--The issue is that the 1% is now using their wealth not to provide goods and benefits to the masses, but to secure power to take away any wealth from the 99% and turn them into serfs.


mikey
25 Oct 11, 21:56
Ayn Rand's wet dreams

The Professor must love living in a perfect world, where his models of material self-interested behavior reign supreme, ever improving upon the already perfect order that is the unfettered free market.

I’ll even grant him the obvious point (though one wonders why he is so desperate to state the blindly obvious) that the vast majority do benefit from the outputs of the capitalists. Of course they do on one level, but that is not the real issue, however much Prof Reisman wants to make it so. He states, as baldly as it is possible "Capitalism — laissez-faire capitalism — is the ideal economic system. It is the embodiment of individual freedom and the pursuit of material self-interest. Its result is the progressive rise in the material well-being of all, manifested in lengthening life spans and ever-improving standards of living."

Unfortunately he therefore believes it must be okay for us all to shit in our own nest, because the free market is the ultimate cure all for any ill we can create in our society. And can save us from ourselves like a perfectly tuned “just in time” logistics system. Does really he believe that a free market will regulate the pollution of our planet in its many and toxic forms? Will the free market act fast enough to slow and reverse the slide of environmental disaster, from chaos and shortage we witness every day to peace and plenty? If so, then why hasn’t it already? If the dear professor had his way we would have done nothing about CFCs. Luckily for all of us, including the 1%, we still have a world to live in because through regulation we stopped the damage they caused. But consider for a moment what would have happened had they been BFCs instead. We’d all be dead by now. CFCs (Chlorine FluoroCarbons) were marginally cheaper and somewhat less volatile than BFCs (Boron FluoroCarbons). But BFCs, as we later found out, damaged the ozone layer 100x more than CFCs. Jeez, weren’t we lucky Mr Market saved us there…

The Prof goes on to claim “The benefit of the capitalists' means of production to non-owners of means of production extends not only to the buyers of the products of those means of production but also to the sellers of the labor that is employed to work with those means of production.” Clearly he has never met a coffee grower in central America, yet another farmer sucked into the vortex of the international market and turned into a subsistence level agri-slave to feed the beast of unrestrained capitalism. The dear Prof would no doubt answer “that’s why he has turned to growing coca for cocaine production. And there too he is no better than a subsistence farmer, but now with everything at risk.

Yes, the Prof loves his theories of perfect utility and no doubt owns signed copies of every Ayn Rand capitalist wet dream, no wonder then he misses the point. His vision of capitalism is unrestrained, where winner takes all, especially to be encouraged when you can buy all the lobby power you need to tilt the free market playing field in your favor. So of course they do and the end result is massive over consumption, factory farming, a poisoned food chain and economic apartheid. And that sucks. It sucks the wealth from the bottom to the top, and while it allows good things to happen it does not mitigate the bad.

The question therefore is not whether capitalism per se is a bad thing, but whether or not we as a seven billion society can keep living this way, ceaselessly growing, gorging ourselves on the earth’s resources, polluting it without care and expecting a happy ending because the free market cowboys will ride in and rescue us all from ourselves. It won’t happen.


Dave
26 Oct 11, 03:13
Quote of the Day

Hey George is this one of yours.

"The slaves of socialism are slaves, but they are no one's property and therefore no one's loss."

Huh, is that how you really think.



26 Oct 11, 14:55
Debt Slaves Are Waking Up

The pofessor is right in stating that the occupy Wall Street, crowd and their supporters, "are responsible for what they complain about," albeit not for the reasons he claims. They are responsible because they have been stupid enough, and complacent enough, for long enough so as to allow their respective governments to enact legislation tilting the playing feild heavily in favour of the corporate conglomerations. This is not true capitalism and hasn't been for a long time. This is "crony" capitalism and has been for a long time.

In bemoaning socialist policies enacted by governments he exposes himself as a "talking head;" a "shill" for those whom he serves, because it profits him (quite well, I suspect). He makes no mention, in his argument, about the socialist nature of the bailouts of the 1%er's banks at the expense of the 99%. Appearantly this is just fine, and fits well with his skewed model of capitalism.

He falsely claims the Occupy Wall Street crowd have a "Marxist mentality." Allow me to point out that Marxism was the wet dream of Wall Street. It was invented, promoted and totally financed by Wall Street cronies in order to give them a trade monopoly with the Soviet Union. The "Marxists" they advanced to power facilitated that very outcome. See Prof. Antony C. Sutton's book, Wall Street and the Rise of Bolshevism (Morley, Australia: Veritas Publishing, 1981).

The "matrix" is coming unwound Georgey; the "useful idiots," the complacent fools, the debt slaves are waking up. The day of reckoning is coming, and many are those who will happily drive a stake through your heart, and of those you serve. A fitting end. God speed them.


Syam
27 Oct 11, 17:05
Your theoritical lense

You are missing the real spirit of protests; it’s about ‘Capitalizing profits and Socializing losses’. I guess you couldn’t see all the bailouts, TBTF etc through your intellectual/theoretical lenses.


swebb
27 Oct 11, 21:21
1% are bloodsuckers

You do know that the legend of the vampire was a parable for rich land owners living off the blood and the sweat of their hard working labourers.

3% of Americas population own 95% of the private land. Is anyone suprised so many Americans are homeless?

This winter thousands will die in their own homes due to fuel poverty, meanwhile the 1% will live it up on yachts abroad and in their massive heated mansions. AT OUR EXPENSE!

No capitalist idealism can excuse this inequality.


dr ray
28 Oct 11, 05:28
The wrong 1%

The "1%" you write about fails to discriminate between the deserving rich and the undeserving rich.

While a few talented individuals like perhaps Steve Jobs did create wealth the overwealming proportion of the very rich in the US and UK have made their money by taking a cut off the top on exchange of assets (eg bankers, financial sector and property speculators) and have added nothing to the wealth of the nation.

It is quite understandable that the "99%" would like to see these people hanging from lamp posts.


sam
28 Oct 11, 09:36
simple facts

I think you are over-intellectualising this.

The fact is people see theirs homes taken away because they can't afford the repayments. It's not really their fault; they have been working hard, saving what they can. To be honest they have a right to be pissed off.

People who have saved carefully are having their savings stolen through inflation and low interest rates. There is nothing they can do about it and they have done nothing to deserve it.

Capitalism is eating them......

so someone somewhere must be getting FAT!


Darren
29 Oct 11, 13:26
?

Wow George you really missed the mark. Makes me wonder what 'lens' YOU are looking through.


gigi
29 Oct 11, 14:15
national socialist state

they have a national socialist state where the socialist birocratic aristocracy make the rules and ,,big buisness" make the money.both are doing well but birocratic ,,intelectuals" or ,,elected" masters have the power

ps:religion and misticism is the next big thing..


ninety nine
29 Oct 11, 16:45
Yay another j00 telling us to just shutup and go to work!

Yay another j00 professor telling us to just shutup and go to work!!!! Can't you just be happy with no life prospects you freaking serfs?? I knew it was a mistake to educate you.



30 Oct 11, 07:21
GM

Great choice to choose GM Governement Motors as an example. THe eople already own it!


alan2102
02 Nov 11, 12:48
Replies

Wow! I must say I am pleased at the replies to Riesman. More people here get it than I had imagined. Good show!

Riesman: the people are waking up, daddy-o. The salad days of liars and shills and sellouts are drawing to a close. Enjoy them while they last.


John
03 Nov 11, 01:14
Hello

You forgot that banks create money out of nothing. Get over your delusions sir.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in