Yeah, I'm definitely coupling capitalism and free-markets, thanks for the clarification
Spoken like a true BELIEVER,
Mark me as a foe then. You are an angry person who likes to demonize and belittle people with opposing view points. I have had loads of experience with the likes of you.
I AM a believer in principles that I hold, until I'm shown good reason to change them. I was a strong believer in socialist ideas for many years until I heard some very profound arguments on Austrian economics and true free market ideals. At that point I decided I could no longer justify my previous leanings. I have no problem changing my viewpoints when confronted with compelling arguments. I have heard no such arguments today.
One thing I will give you is that my statement on the wealth gap did trivialize the practice of slavery and the general oppression of minorities in this country, even to the present day (see the continued drug war in America). I view this ongoing human tragedy as a social issue, not as an intrinsic property of the free market. We can argue about slavery and mistreatment of groups of people with ANY form of government. I did read the brief introduction and book excerpt from your link, "A People's History of Poverty in America," Stephan Pimpare. He makes a valid point in one paragraph about the distortion of basically free workers in the overall assessment of the system; This is an interesting point that I will be looking more closely at in the near future. However, my point was more towards the current 1% vs 99%, as opposed to poverty conditions of oppressed minorities; distort my argument if you want to, but as I have already admitted, my intention was not to minimize the suffering of so many people.
Its too bad you are closing off discussion; I find that argument and rational discussion with those who disagree with me are sometimes the most worthwhile conversations to have. They force you to defend your stances rationally and truly look at why you have them. A true believer connects emotionally with their argument, not rationally, and therefore finds it nearly impossible to change their ideas. That is not me, regardless of what you imply.
I've already written a good deal on this thread, but I appreciate your post and wanted to briefly comment...
(1) This is an excellent, excellent point. I can only say that America had a pretty close to ideal capitalist, free-market society, codified in the Constitution. Now, I would say that the departure from this ideal capitalism comes from heavy government regulation and failure to enforce violations of companies in the market on the property and contractual rights of the individual. This brings us to your example of Russia, yeah I can say now that we aren't really a capitalist society, but is this the inevitable result of implementing one, that you eventually get to the point where it no longer resembles one? I can't really counter this point, because its a valid one.
That comment actually pretty much includes your (1) and (2) points, so I'll leave it at that. Good discussion points, and I hope somebody picks them up and continues; however, that someone will not be me, I'm exhausted from all the posting
Your last reply was much more conducive to a rational discussion, thank you. I'll keep this reply short, as its the last one I'll make on this thread.
Saying that 12 people owned the economy 100 years ago is just silly. The market is a wildly complex and dynamic creature made up of the interactions of all who particpate, basically the entire citizenry. I will agree that there was power concentration, but this will happen in any situation. Take communism in Russia for example, where essentially power accumulated into a very small political ruling class (sound familiar?). The difference with pure capitalism is that there is actually a means for the power concentration to change. If any of those 12 people you mention had made a continual effort to crowd out all competition it would eventually depleat their resources to the point where effective competition would be possible, or it would bankrupt them; note, I am not disagreeing with temporary (even if years long) concentrations of power, just saying pure capitalism offers the means for change through the dynamics of the market.
The intracicies of what I previously mentioned with barriers of entry etc.. are the most important part of the discussion, they illustrate the complexities of the market and the fact that no one power concentration could hope to be maintained indefinitely without government assistance, of which I gave several pretty damn good examples.
I don't suggest there is an invisible hand making intelligent decisions through the citizenry. I am merely saying that a pure free market prevents any one power base from exercising total control indefinitely, like you see by countless examples throughout history. This is not make believe, this happens then this happens, its demonstrable. A purely simple and humurous analogy (not necessarily completely accurate): A lion pride may have effective domination of a certain market, but you get enough buffalos together and they can drive them out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ1Z3QGAmx4&feature=fvsr
In closing, the capitalist and free market American government gave the world the largest middle class ever seen in history. The wealth gap was pretty stable for like 200 years up until the beginning of the 20th century or so; so while I'm not expert enough to comment on 12 people owning the economy, I am suspect of the statement. We have seen the wealth gap increase dramatically since the early 1970s, as it really did since the beginning of the 20th century, but much more so now, and this is a direct result of the poor non-capitlistic, non-free market principles America has been following for the last century.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android