0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED!

[Anonymous]

There is no reason why your idiotic, non-existent company would exist in the first place. Nobody would work for it nor sign their lives away in the first place.

And yet... they have. His scenario is remarkably similar to what happened in a number of industries in turn-of-the-20th century America. The stuff he's saying actually happened right here in the real world, while all of your ideas are utopian fantasies based on the inherent goodness of capitalism, a goodness that's so strong you can apparently corrupt it completely with a single regulation.

Myth-based history.

http://mises.org/daily/4604

[Anonymous]

Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible.

Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.

Or maybe not. How are the two things related?

If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state.

[rainingbitcoins]

Myth-based history.

http://mises.org/daily/4604

It's not "myth-based history" when you can go back and read about the lives of these people in countless books written at the time. Which you sorely need to do.

Effective force in our current world is limited to the state

How far gone do you have to be to think this?

[Gabi]

Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible.

Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.

Or maybe not. How are the two things related?

If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state.

If you are making profit then you have still space for more value in your product BUT you don't do it to have more profit.

[ParrotyBit]

If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state.

Consider states mega-corporations with a monopoly on land and force. Their "laws" are company policy. What makes the world different from a free-market economy?

[Anonymous]

Myth-based history.

http://mises.org/daily/4604

It's not "myth-based history" when you can go back and read about the lives of these people in countless books written at the time. Which you sorely need to do.

Effective force in our current world is limited to the state

How far gone do you have to be to think this?

Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation. If anything, it was a pinnacle part of history and a necessary one. It occurs in every evolving country inevitably. The oppressor is previous technology and restraints.

Think about it. If there is somebody who has more force than the government, do you think the government is all the sovereign? There are few large inter-entity thefts that are not enabled by government loopholes and subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Capitalism= the investor want as more profit as possible.

Yep and having a profitable service is the most charitable thing you can for society. If you're making massive legitimate profit, you have to be bringing an equivalent value to society. It's a beautiful thing.

Or maybe not. How are the two things related?

If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state.

If you are making profit then you have still space for more value in your product BUT you don't do it to have more profit.

Well, the profit doesn't have to be exclusively invested within a single product. It can be used to create other ones. The fact is if you're profitable, people are usually giving you their money voluntarily for a product they desire just as much. You can use the returned profit to create things people desire and hence make more money.

Intentions are irrelevant.

[Gabi]

More like capitalits exploited the new technology and the workers.

It can be used to create other ones

Or maybe not.

And if such capitalists make a nice cartel then you are forced to buy such products.

[Anonymous]

If you're not bringing value, you're stealing. Theft can only be enabled by force. Effective force in our current world is limited to the state.

Consider states mega-corporations with a monopoly on land and force. Their "laws" are company policy. What makes the world different from a free-market economy?

That there is no competition or a companies ability to fail. If you get paid regardless of what you turn out, you're not a business. You're a government.

[Anonymous]

More like capitalits exploited the new technology and the workers.

It can be used to create other ones

Or maybe not.

And if such capitalists make a nice cartel then you are forced to buy such products.

Well, the workers could of chosen to keep their ideas trade secret and facilitated the construction of a new company. If they didn't have the skills and/or chose not to use them, then it's a fair exchange if the company uses them.

A nice cartel is a government. Anyways, if any company can create a cartel, I doubt any of them will sustain. Problems only occur when you get monopolies and in a fair environment they do not form.

If they do, it's just another government. Not a business.

You want your "corporate cartel"? It's right in front of you. It's your government.

[ParrotyBit]

That there is no competition or a companies ability to fail. If you get paid regardless of what you turn out, you're not a business. You're a government.

States do compete, and states do fail. It's called war, and it's the competition between force to get more land. Try again, though.

[Anonymous]

That there is no competition or a companies ability to fail. If you get paid regardless of what you turn out, you're not a business. You're a government.

States do compete, and states do fail. It's called war, and it's the competition between force to get more land. Try again, though.

States don't compete nor truly fail in our current environment. They are constantly bailed out and subsidized by the centralized banking entities. There is no true sovereignty at the moment and that's the problem. The people who control the money, control us. They are making their control more globalized as we speak through creations like the UN and the EU.

It certainly limits growth and turns them against us. More and more our wealth is diluted and funneled to them.

[Gabi]

I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them.

And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery.
Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it?

[bitleaker]

Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation.

As someone who has spent many years studying the industrial revolution, I have only one thing to say to you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[rainingbitcoins]

The capitalists were only saving people from starvation.

By firing or killing them when they advocated for anything more than bare survival. And buying up all of the towns around the mines so the workers were forced to spend every cent they made at overpriced company stores. Or, hell, just paying them in scrip that could only be redeemed at said store so that even if they did have a way to travel, they couldn't spend their money. It was all for them, the workers. God bless our captains of industry.

You see, all of those books you read by people who actually lived through this? All lies. Von Mises told me so.

Really, Atlas, all of your arguments boil down to your belief that unbridled capitalism would be a good thing, and that all evidence to the contrary is either a myth or somehow the government's fault. Anything bad that happens in the current system doesn't apply because everything has some degree of connection to the government and is therefore tainted. When the evidence suggests that fewer regulations equal more exploitation, you explain it away or call it a myth or blame it on whatever regulations are still left standing.

It's that simple. You can dress it up with all of the fancy words you learned this week, but it's a remarkably simplistic ideology based mostly on faith.

[Anonymous]

I see not-governments cartel everywhere, especially when the governments doesn't regulate them.

And slavery is not a fair exchange. Guess what? Governments stopped slavery.
Why a capitalist should free a slave if he can exploit it?

Heh, government hasn't stopped slavery.

A slave can produce more with an illusion of freedom. Chattel slaves are horribly inefficient. I get a whole lot more by taking a cut off his labor through a tax. In fact, I can enable this form of slavery in large populations through positive-reinforcement through entitlements. Happy, happy, happy slaves and more money for me.

[Anonymous]

Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation.

As someone who has spent many years studying the industrial revolution, I have only one thing to say to you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Government-enabled Industrialists =/= Capitalists

[Anonymous]

The capitalists were only saving people from starvation.

By firing or killing them when they advocated for anything more than bare survival. And buying up all of the towns around the mines so the workers were forced to spend every cent they made at overpriced company stores. Or, hell, just paying them in scrip that could only be redeemed at said store so that even if they did have a way to travel, they couldn't spend their money. It was all for them, the workers. God bless our captains of industry.

They used monopolies on force. That's not capitalism.

[bitleaker]

Okay, you didn't read the article. Industrial Revolution conditions are not the result of capitalism but people rising from poorer conditions that would otherwise exist. The capitalists were only saving people from starvation.

As someone who has spent many years studying the industrial revolution, I have only one thing to say to you. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Government-enabled Industrialists =/= Capitalists

What the hell are you talking about? What kind of answer is that?

If you want to shatter your naive rose-tinted illusions as to what the industrial revolution was like for the average worker, read up about the Luddite Rebellion.

[ParrotyBit]

States don't compete nor truly fail in our current environment. They are constantly bailed out and subsidized by the centralized banking entities. There is no true sovereignty at the moment and that's the problem. The people control the money control us.

You sure about that? Because not too long ago, I heard some workers revolted, got rid of their CEO, and found a new one.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go listen to Bohemian Rhapsody while making some Free Tibet signs.