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...

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...