Mark Jaquith has just written some thoughts about Vanderbilts: dear Mark, do you have to go back to the 19th century to find people “of your kind”? That’s a bit sad and it might tell you something about “the splendor of capitalism”. I don’t want to be too rude so let me add a smiling face. :)
What I want to say is that capitalism (*), like any other kind of economic system, is a point or perhaps just a small line segment in human history. A “Holy Grail” of economic systems, which is the best forever and ever, simply doesn’t exist.
Even though I used to have the same point of view as yours, mathematically speaking, Socialism and Liberism are old tools nowadays. They model human labour with very little attention to the whole resources cycle that a complex society like ours can’t ignore.
Let me suggest three books for a profound understanding of what I’ve tried to describe:
- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962);
- The Limits to Growth (1972);
- The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971).
(*) I prefer to use the term Liberism or Economic liberalism because “Capitalism” was widespread by the writings of Marx and Engels, which I’m sure you don’t want to refer to. :) And yes, the title of this post is willfully provocative. :)
Last update: 2009-09-18
In a way, I do. It’s harder now to find people who are “out and proud” about their successes and their right to the property they’ve earned, like the Vanderbilts were. Most people have trended toward some sense of partial public ownership of their assets and talents.
I’m not interested in pragmatic views of economics. Pragmatism in this regard leads to attempts to engineer economic outcomes by immorally shackling people. “To achieve X, we need to interfere with people’s lives thusly.” I come at it from the other side: Laissez-faire, or economic liberalism is the only philosophy that doesn’t prevent humans from living as independent rational beings. Let the chips fall where they may.