Skip to main content

Capitalism in Repose: A Portrait


What is capitalism? I have mulled this over multiple times and even published articles wondering what exactly capitalism is and what it is not. The reason is because while nobody agrees on an exact definition, by and large folks agree that it is something fairly new, that has only been practised over the last few hundred years.

Capitalism is not, in itself, private ownership of the means of production, otherwise everything in a sense is capitalism, even communism, but it relies on the existence of private property rights in things, including things that can be used to make other things.

It's time to end the confusion as to what capitalism actually is and be very very specific. Capitalism is a set of economic activities/processes whereby entrepreneurs meet financiers and -both motivated by money profit & loss- implement a never-tried-before plan for the allocation of labour and capital in the production of a good or service. This means money must exist, and therefore private property rights must be at least mostly respected.

It doesn't matter whether it's a completely new good/service or just a new way to put together an existing one. It's the allocation plan, stupid! Why a new plan?

Once production kicks in and units are sold the success or failure of the plan is assessed based on the team's total profit margin - that is income after production, payroll, compliance and administrative costs. But this team of entrepreneurs and financiers are not the only ones making that assessment...


Sure enough, as per the second part of the diagram above, other teams implement the same allocation plan and so market crowding becomes a foreseeable or real problem for all the teams participating in the race. Meanwhile the old ways that this allocation plan has surpassed (in efficiency and productivity) are abandoned - this is creative destruction; death of allocation plans and their replacement in real-time by new ones.

Therefore, at some point somebody lowers their prices.

If the price goes down, availability has also gone up, and since it's produced goods and services that offer people the chance of survival, safety, comfort and finally leisure then by definition capitailsm is ushering in an age of universal easy access to all of these things, or affluence!

Rinse and repeat this process to explain every permanent increase in the general welfare of people from 1800 to the present day. It's not hard to see what's going on here, and it's not hard to see why this process is so vital to human flourishing.

This should basically kill any criticism of capitalism itself, as opposed to particular actions by particular people. Limited liability, corporate personhood, bans on unionisation, and events like the Haymarket massacre are now demonstrably not intrinsic to the definition or performance of this capitalism.

Enjoy Capitalism!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...

Doomer Eternal?

Youtuber Sarah Z talks about the Doomers, those who despair of the world. I am not trying to criticize Sarah Z's take since it is remarkably similar to mine, but I will dump my thoughts below anyway. [ 1 ] ~ ~ ~ The media has broadcast nothing but wall-to-wall doom-and-gloom for a-hundred years and then some. If things feel more hopeless now it's because so much of that media is social media generated by us, so that we are sharing the doom-and-gloom meme with each other AS WELL AS getting it from the mainstream media. Human life is in less peril than ever before (barring the possibility of WW3 between China & Russia v. NATO & SEATO) as economic development makes comfortable civilized living more and more accessible to more and more people every year, and the carbon intensity of every unit of GDP is continually declining. CO2 emissions could plausibly lead to specific calamities with identifiable bodycounts in the near future, and preventing CO2 emissions by the one plau...

Iain McKay, Bryan Caplan & the Case of the "Anarchist" Anarchist

In the past I have written blog posts disputing claims contained in the online document called An Anarchist FAQ principally written by Iain McKay. I spent those posts trying to contend with Iain's claims re  the ancap question  and  the mode of production called capitalism . McKay has a bee in his bonnet re anarcho-capitalists' insistence on referring to themselves as anarchists, that much is obvious. Every reference to ancapism runs something along the lines of "an"cap or "anarcho"-capitalism. I find this very amusing because 'anarchist' or 'anarchism' are words (articulate mouth-sounds) first and specific concepts second.  Ditto 'socialist' and 'socialism' friends. Speaking of socialism... In  the comment section of one of his videos  the Youtuber called StatelessLiberty responded to a criticism by linking to Caplan's work  on the Anarchist adventure in Spain in the 1930's . The critic shot back with a  critic...