It would seem obvious that an economic system where exchanges take place only if both parties see advantage is morally superior to one in which every exchange has a winner and a loser.Yet every generation seems to have a flirtation with socialism, a system based on force and predation.
“When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frederic Bastiat
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Pure capitalism without guard rails ultimately becomes an economic survival of the fittest.
Some degree of “sharing” (what some may see as socialism) at least lets the most vulnerable survive.
We have a combination of both capitalism and socialism that we continue to fine tune because, ultimately, one cannot survive without the other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pure capitalism has nothing to do with SURVIVAL of the fittest, it is about rewarding those who serve us best more than those who choose not to serve.
Survival of the fittest implies a zero sum game in which the gains of one comes at the expense of another. Capitalism is about the creation of wealth, the opposite of zero sum.
Yes, the rich get richer, but the poor get richer too. Poor in 2019 is very different from poor in 1919. Poor in 2019 is actually a lot better than rich in 1919. And that is because of capitalism.
LikeLike
Some people are born with genetic traits that give them an advantage over others. If you’re lucky enough to be born “smart” you can use that advantage to gain material wealth at the expense of others. In the zero sum game of capitalism there will be winners and losers. Ergo survival of the fittest.
The losers may be uplifted, but only to the extent that they provide a resource to the “winners” (rich and powerful). Without “guardrails” it will get to the point where the “losers” revolt and we start over again after the failure of your “completely” free market.
Some degree of “sharing” is mandatory to creat a sustainable balance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It always comes down to a threat that if not paid off, the losers will revolt. That’s not a failure of the free market, it is an abandonment of reason in favor of brute force.
But your starting premise is incorrect. The more productive do not create wealth at the expense of the others, they create wealth by serving them.
Bill gates is wealthy because he served us better than any other coder. Tom Steyers and Al Gore are wealthy because they manipulated government for crony advantage. Gates raised everyone, Steyers and Gore preyed upon us all through the use of government and outside of a free market.
LikeLike
“ It always comes down to a threat that if not paid off, the losers will revolt.“
That is a load of bull. Countries that have fallen because of the excesses of wealth accumulation by a tiny minority have done so because the majority have no options left. Even you would revolt if your government stole your assets by laws and corruption by an oligarchy. Starvation is not negotiable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Please do point to the capitalist country, not dominated by cronyism, in which anyone is starving.
You continuously confuse cronyism with capitalism but they are two different things.
Cronyism is the consistent outcome of trying to bring about equality through government. All of the ills you ascribe to capitalism are really the unintended outcome of government trying to fix things.
LikeLike
Venezuela. What brought socialism was the disparity of wealth distribution. The rest is history.
There is no pure free market capitalism in the world. Never has been. So long as there is government, there will be crony capitalism.
The difference is how it is handled.
Scandinavia has a lot to teach us.
Or more precisely, we have a lot to learn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Venezuela went from cronyism to socialism and back to cronyism, just with more police power behind it.
LikeLike
,I find it interesting that any “pure free market” supporter would also support the biggest crony capitalist in the history of the Presidency…
Between the no-bid contracts and the tax reform(?) the Corrupter in Chief is truly in a class all his own.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Whatever gives you the idea that I support everything Trump does or has done. I have criticized many of his policies and much of his rhetoric. I personally do not like him at all.
But I despise the abandonment of reason even more, and the 3+ year quest to misuse the law to undo an election is a far greater threat to reason and the Rule of Law than anything Trump has done.
So, I find myself on Trump’s side because reason demands it and because you keep pushing me there.
LikeLike
“on Trump’s side because reason demands it”
Interestingly I find myself on the other side for the exact same reason.
The Rule of Law and our Constitution are being used (not misused) for exactly what they were designed for. There has been no “quest” to undo an election and the patriots that have reluctantly stepped up to do their jobs have applied “reason” NOT abandoned it.
History will prove them correct in their actions to save the Republic.
PS; maybe the “pushing” is coming from preconceived notions you refuse to reconsider as additional information becomes available.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Uh, the promises of impeachment began before Trump even took office.
The grounds seized upon fell away as each was found unjustified. The latest is a Hail Mary pass with the clock running out.
It was always a process in search of a justification, not a response to wrongdoing.
LikeLike
Yes, individuals, as they always will, made pronouncements about trump’s criminality, unfitness for office and even impeachment. Heck some of the comments came from GOP contenders before their “enlightenment”.
Kinda like Moscow Mitch’s and others making pronouncements about Obama.
Regardless, you are mistaken about the reasons for the Articles of Impeachment approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Trump clearly abused his powers as President and obstructed Congress in pursuit of its lawful job of executive oversight.
NOTHING will change these simple facts….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Individuals, like the alleged whistleblower’s attorney who announced the ‘coup’ begins on the night of the election.
The impeachment inquiry is not a response to wrongdoing, it is an ongoing effort which has settled on a desperate ploy as the clock runs out.
The abuse of power is by the Democrat House which knowingly issued subpoenas under unlawful terms and then refused to wait for the courts to sort it out.
LikeLike
RE: “It would seem obvious that an economic system where exchanges take place only if both parties see advantage is morally superior to one in which every exchange has a winner and a loser.”
It would seem so, but you have to begin with first principles. In my experience most people do not. Instead, when they hear the word capitalism they automatically think, “Oh, that’s just one of several possible ways to organize society for the benefit of its members.”
Then they spin their wheels contemplating the menu of options for organizing society. And here they get stuck, because everyone has a pet theory for how to make the world a better place.
It would seem Karl Marx polluted all future discussions of economics.
LikeLike
A grossly oversimplified and therefore FALSE dichotomy between “capitalism” and other economic models.
There is nothing morally superior about a system that delivers face lifts to the wealthy elderly but denies lifesaving medicines to the children of the poor.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The “other” systems deliver neither.
LikeLike
You again show the “conservative” inability to think beyond black and white stereotypes. What “other” system do you think you are referring to? The real world is far more complex than the simple models in your head.
In this case, you defend the indefensible by comparing it to an imaginary alternative, Is there even a name for this form of logical fallacy?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What other system? Any other system.
Free markets in which government excludes force and fraud, but otherwise leaves us free to choose outperform both socialist, mixed, or the cronyist system Len mistakes for capitalism.
LikeLike
“… the cronyist system Len mistakes for capitalism.”
Capitalism is all about property ownership and accumulation in a free market.
Politics is about governance as selected and approved by the electorate. Unfortunately the reality is that money in our system is more important than constituency.
So regulatory guard rails need to be for most of us to allow the capitalists the freedom to innovate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Any other system? Plenty of mixed systems deliver both luxuries for the rich and necessities for the poor. Your comments bear little reference to reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You won’t even understand why this is both funny and tragic
” Back in the Czarist days of Russia, when serfs tended their poor, miserable potato crops, there were two farmers, Boris and Ivan, who were neighbors. Both lived in abject poverty, dwelling with their families in squalid shanties.
One day while he was in the field, Ivan discovered a magic lamp and, after rubbing it, was greeted by a genie who offered him one wish for anything his heart desired. Ivan was a simple but good man and asked for a goat so that he could have milk for his family. His wish was granted: a beautiful nanny goat suddenly appeared, her belly full of milk.
Ivan joyfully brought the goat home and celebrated the gift with his family. Boris spotted the goat and Ivan’s happy family and his heart was filled with bitter envy over his neighbor’s good fortune. To his surprise, Ivan visited him the next day and gave him the lamp as a gift.
After Ivan departed, Boris took the lamp inside his hovel and rubbed it carefully. The genie appeared and offered him a single wish for his heart’s desire.
“Anything you want,” said the genie, “be it gold, jewels or a herd of goats – I will give it to you at once.”
Boris didn’t even pause to think. He narrowed his eyes at the genie and responded, “I want that Ivan’s goat should die.”
LikeLike
“ You can only improve your own position by improving the circumstances of others.” Ebeling as quoted on Williams’ column.
That is not quite true. With American capitalism there are other forces in play that are better restrained in other Western industrial countries.
Two that are very prominent are our legal system and our financial sector. Both force companies to perform and expend resources that are not in their own, and the investors, best interests.
Trump is an example of legal abuse. His 3500 lawsuits were primarily tactics to prevent payment to vendors, counter suits for his malfeasance, and harassment of competitors. Call it the Fred Trump/Roy Cohn school of screwing people. Many worked by forcing other companies under or otherwise depleting funds even in cases that were legitimate.
Large companies sue start ups all the time. Patent law is abused. Hostile takeovers force companies into bankruptcy or other actions which are detrimental to the investors, workers and communities that are dependent upon the success of that company.
The only stopgap is effective policing by government, but that is weakened by the monied players. And here is the cold hard reality: huge wealth accumulation is the same as huge power accumulation.
This debate about socialism is bogus. There are no serious plans to control the means of production. There are plans to keep people from dying or needlessly disabled because they cannot afford healthcare. Or expand affordable education to prevent the debt debacle we have now.
There is no earthly reason that capitalism requires a large percentage of the population to barely survive in order for others to be competitive. None.
Williams is living in a dream world of some utopian Libertarian system that is not aligned with any form of governance in the free world. He fails to account for the delicate balance between the private sector and political realities of democratically elected governments. The unicorn of a perpetually benign dictatorship is what he, and you apparently, are yearning for.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “There is no earthly reason that capitalism requires a large percentage of the population to barely survive in order for others to be competitive.”
Capitalism in fact requires no such thing. The idea that it does is pure Marxian thinking, a version of the fallacy that capital exploits labor.
LikeLike
Never mind Marx. That has nothing to do with our current form of economics. The fact is we have a large portion of the population that cannot afford to live in our country. Yet they are working full time.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “The fact is we have a large portion of the population that cannot afford to live in our country.”
What does that even mean, and how does it say anything useful about capitalism?
LikeLike
What does that even mean?
Read it again. I made my case clear.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I note that all of your examples are failures of government, not failures of a free market
LikeLike
Really. Trump’s lawsuits? Patent law? Hostile takeovers?
Free market legal system is what we have when lawyers charge $1000/hr. Intellectual property protection is absolutely necessary to protect innovation. Creative destruction is the favorite defense of takeovers.
What I listed was abuse by big money in a capitalistic system that accords little responsibility to protect workers or the middle classes from excesses of money manipulation.
I’ll grant that the oligarchs write the laws by virtue of the cost of getting elected. You admitted more than once that Libertarians won’t get elected, so what good is posturing about a unicorn?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Virtually every other country has some form of ‘loser pays’ that keeps down those frivolous and abusive lawsuits.
But such a system also holds down the total number of lawsuits and the most powerful crony organization in the US is the Trial Lawyers Assoc.
Again, those abuses are cronyism, which can only exist when supported by government.
The only way to avoid government being bought is for it to have nothing to sell.
LikeLike
Well until we get the big money out of campaigns, like “citizens united” with both unlimited and anonymous donors, what you call for will never happen.
Again, with the system we have we need better safety nets for the vast majority of Americans. And better regulatory laws with teeth for the financial sector.
You want your proverbial cake…
LikeLiked by 2 people
The more power we give government to counteract its own faults, the worse those faults will get. More power to intervene in the economy simply give more incentive to buy it.
LikeLike
“ The more power we give government to counteract its own faults, the worse those faults will get.“
So let’s get rid of crap like monstrous anonymous donations, PACs, campaign cycles that last years, prohibit any donations other than from the actual constituent who can cast a ballot for his particular representative. Cap all donations and list donors.
Forget Citizens United’s phony “corporations are people”.
Six weeks is more than enough to make your case if all you can solicit support from is your own district or even state. Perhaps 12 weeks max for presidential election cycles, including nominations.
Reduce the size of constituents from 750,000 to 100,000 for the House.
Then maybe you can effect laws that limit government intrusion in favor of monied interests.
You want to get rid of crony capitalism? Really and truly? Then consider getting the money out of politics. You might even get a Libertarian in office.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can’t get money out of politics. Hunter Biden should be proof of that.
There will always be ways for monied interests to reward a complaint politician.
It can be plush jobs for family members, or astroturf demonstrations in their favor, or Hollywood scripts that favor them, or newspaper editorials from privately held papers. Or other ways I can’t imagine, but there will always be a way,no matter how many doors you try to close with regulation, they will find others to open, all you do is to squeeze out the candidates without the resources to get past the barriers.
The only government that won’t be bought is one that has nothing to sell.
LikeLike
“ You can’t get money out of politics.“
That is capitalism. Accumulation of wealth equals power. Period.
But if wealth and massive contributions are not needed to gain office, the political power by the wealthy is dampened.
From the day our country was founded, wealth determined what was coming from government. Roads, military contracts, land, tariffs, etc.
You could start a clean slate tomorrow, but big money that hires a lot of people will make the laws that benefit them.
The sticky part is curtailment.
“…it to have nothing to sell” is a nice slogan, but the reality is that every action by government helps or hurts someone. Roads are the simplest example. Riparian rights. Airports. Environmental issues.
And, of course, military procurements.
Remembering that the whole point of Congress is to have the representatives look out for the interests of their constituents than hash out legislation through compromise as needed. If money interferes too much, the constituents often get screwed.
A representative system is always going to be susceptible to abuse. But so is a benign dictatorship which is what you are really selling.
LikeLiked by 1 person