Note: Last week a lengthy article appeared in the Guardian written by a guy called Paul Mason. The title of the piece was “The end of capitalism has begun”. It’s a long drivel and basically a waste of time. But it needs to be refuted, and someone’s got to do it. The reason is that these scribblings, like Thomas Piketty’s recent book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”, attempt to frame the debate. Nobody reads them, but that doesn’t matter. A servile and/or collaborating media do the additional framing. And suddenly “everyone” says (or continues saying) how bad capitalism is etc. However, due to alternative media, debate framing is not the easy job it used to be. Piketty has already been taken apart by a few people, including George Reisman. Now, expert dissector Gary North has literally ripped apart Paul Mason – and then trampled on the pieces. Like Piketty, Mason has either never heard of Ludwig von Mises and his revolutionary 1920 article “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth”, which proves that socialism in all its forms will not work. Or he chooses to ignore the great Austrian. In the era of the internet, these authors are wasting their time. Mason is whistling past the graveyard, in the dark, and promptly falls into a pit. M.n.
Anyway, here’s North’s article – enjoy:
Paul Mason: The Latest Pied Piper of “the Death of Capitalism”
As the government controls the availability and direction of money (and interest) etc.; it is retarded to assume that we live under a “capitalist system” or even ‘free market’. If anything, it is more socialist… For example, universities may compete with each other to attract students, but with all the bailouts they get in the form of bonds and student loans etc. (i.e.; taxpayer’s money) no alternative enterprises can get a look in and challenge the status quo (unless you’re already one of the big boys). Same goes for corporations and banks etc.. So-called markets are stagnant ‘closed loops’ with little innovation and outside competition…
It is also retarded to assume that ‘capitalism’ is a system, especially a political one; when trading resources is as natural and as old as breathing and having babies… Challenging misguided assumptions with clearer definitions is what is really needed here, otherwise you’re falling for a straw man every time.
“It is also retarded to assume that ‘capitalism’ is a system”
The fundamental lie at the heart of all “anti-capitalist” rhetoric. When these sorts refer to capitalism, what they mean is commerce or trade, which, as you rightly point out, is “as natural and old as breathing and having babies”.
This just appeared over at The Economist:
“New-economy pioneers may be socially liberal, but their economic views tend to the libertarian right.”