Flaws of Capitalism

1. Advertising is a misallocation of resources.  Do we need to devote millions of dollars making a dumb celebrity rich to tell us that coke is better than Pepsi?   The counter argument is that advertising is for our own benefit which is obviously not true.  Should the benefit of being informed outweigh the pain and toil of viewing the ad then people would voluntarily watch ads for their intrinsic value to which they don't.  

2. Land can not be owned. It existed before the land owner did and will exist after they perish. The land is neither a creation of the owner nor exist as dependent upon the owner. If I state land is mine, the only thing that changes is my attitude that it is mine and nothing else. I can't deny the fruit of the land to others, as I have no claim on it myself. A simple glance at history shows this to be self-evident. I doubt anybody in their serious mind would advocate that Indians were trespassing on their own land, or that feudal land barons truly owned the land. By what right did say a post civil war sharecropping landowner have over the land that the ex-slave did not? Land to be legit must have valid source to which it doesn't. All acquisition of such as been backed by force and coercion and to sanctify the claim on land would be to sanctify such uses of force and coercion. Therefore all aspects of land owning be it the ability to push one off of it through trespass or control material aspects of wealth through ownership are obviously wrong.

3. Labor must be exchanged at an unequal ratio of giving to receiving. Labor forms but a fractional part of what we know as wealth and yet it is the only true contribution one can truly offer to the economy. Say I am shipwrecked on an island. Another is also shipwrecked alongside me but arrives a half hour later. I proclaim the island to be mine and that he is trespassing. This ownership gives me the ability to push him around through trespass and to pull him around through his needs. Say there is a fruit tree on the island... How can I proclaim that he must labor to give, I don't know, say a nice boat in exchange for the fruit? I will receive the fruit of his labor through no contribution of my own. Another example: Say one is born on a space station owned by the propertarian. The only contribution I can make is to work in the industrial core of the station making luxuries for the owner. Without owning anything and born trespassing, they are a virtual slave. The owner could charge monopolistic prices to breath air, to eat food, to maintain occupancy, and to obtain clothes. The wage-slave would be forced to accept harsh working condition, longer hours, and less pay, for they have but labor to offer. Now swap earth for space station and all can become clear. The labor that the serf gave the land baron was stolen. The sharecropper gives slave like labor to the landowner... Therefore with the unnatural claim on that which isn't labor, all must either be a have or a have not to a varying degree. This is not to argue that labor by default has value. If government pays me to walk in circles, I have created no value. Also, an hour of vacuuming a carpet is not the same as an hour of working in a coal mine. In addition, scarcity of materiality also has value. The argument with labor however is that which isn't one's own labor can not be excluded to others.

4. Stored labor (AKA capital) is also abused with capitalism. If while stranded on an owned island and with only labor to offer, I build a house to access the fruit of the land, then this capital does not truly belong to the landowner. His denial of my access of the house is obviously unjust. Even capitalist contract law recognizes a contract under duress not to even be a contract to begin with. Stolen stored labor then represents another monopoly that those with only labor must be burdened with. Not only does the wage-slave have to offer labor at an unequal ratio to escape trespass and to obtain the earth's material aspects for necessities, but the must also give additional labor to access stored labor that doesn. t belong to the capitalist. The serf must pay to use the ship that they made for the feudal baron... The capitalist then reinvest this labor that they didn't create, giving them more labor that they didn't create, and the game grows like a tumor. The same idea of stolen labor applies to labor from the deceased. How can a modern European city where the houses were constructed in medieval times, have rent for the dwellings? The carpenters are dead... To receive fruits of others labors for labor I didn't create is silly. The intentions of the carpenters is also irrelevant. As Thomas Jefferson put it in his argument against debt, "The dead do not rule the living." Say a group of people were abducted by aliens and transported to an alien environment where they lived in dwelling and ate food already provided by alien labor. For one man to state the alien dwellings belonged to him for whatever reason would obviously be wrong, and such wealth attained by this monopoly would also be wrongly attained. We are floating on the stolen wealth. When slaves picked cotton, they enhanced the economy then, (and enhance the economy now). Who is righteous to say that this wealth belongs to anybody today? Is it not absurd that an ex-slave could be charged with stealing a chicken from the plantation owner when it was slaves that created this wealth to began with? Is it not absurd to state it is stealing if clothing created with slavery is forcibly taken by another? What about the wealth that was able to be created by not focusing on cotton/tobacco/etc...? If someone picks my cotton for me, I devote this saved labor to constructing a house, how can I say the house is my own labor? What about stored capital wrongly owned that is reinvested creating more stolen capital?

5. Sunk cost: Say I have the option of paying 20 ounces of silver to cross a bridge. The bridge was made as a bad investment and is for the most part deserted. Crossing gives a negligible amount of wear and tear. If I decide 20 ounces is too high and won't cross, then why shouldn't I then be able to cross? The bridge suffers no harm, and sense I would not have crossed anyways with the fee how can there be a fee? Scenario one has me paying nothing, but not crossing, and inflicting no harm on anybody. Scenario two has me paying nothing, crossing, and inflicting no harm anybody. If the only difference is crossing, then how can this be controlled? Or say one builds a house and abandons it. Others go and live there, making a negligible impact on the dwelling, and the builder returns 30 years later... If he demands rents for this sunk cost how can he be righteous?

6. Money: How can there be righteous claim on the intermediary of exchange? Say I have labor to offer to another in the form of farming and my friend has to offer me construction work. If we don't have money, we must pay an oligarchial price to obtain such just to have access to wealth. One who has money will enjoy the fruits of our labor through no contribution of his own. Money is worthless and in reality is a ponzi scheme where its value is not intrinsic, but derived from the idea that another will give it value who in turn derives its worth that another will give that value... Even gold is worthless. Strand yourself on an island, and I can think of nothing more worthless than to have gold with you. This is the true reason for Revolutionary War. The colonies enjoyed prosperity when they issued their own colonial script. This way for the baker and blacksmith to exchange labor they did not have to send a ship load of wealth to England in exchange for their worthless money. England realized the value of exporting worthless money and therefore restricted the colonies domestic money to which an economic downturn occurred and later prompted war. Secession can be a lucrative endeavor if the means of intermediarying exchange is developed from within. On the opposite side, whenever a people adapt a foreign currency, either with colonialism, state expansion, lack of faith in local currency or whatever, wealth is exported outside of the nation. This is a major reason the US is wealthy, is because the dollar is a major international currency. Foreign central banks hoard dollars and in exchange American's get stereos, cars, and other goods. Quite a one sided deal. Money furthermore represents inefficiency in the toil it takes to make it and guard it. The gold rushes were wasted efforts as are the trees that die to make federal notes. Furthermore money doesn't have a legitimate source. Who am I to say that a vein of gold in the ground is mine? How can I say that paper notes are mine? There source is fiat, either through mining or the printing press, and fiat wealth can only have value if one can trick another to exchange real wealth for such. Just as land that the Europeans excluded from the Indians does not become theirs or their customer's, neither can money without a legit origin, be legit now. Furthermore there is the fascinating issue of banks... In the old days, gold was unwieldy to carry around so people put their gold in care of gold smiths, who in turn printed claim slips on the gold. The slips could be traded as gold, since you could exchange the slip for gold. Goldsmiths then got fraudulent by issuing more claims on the gold then they actually had through loans. The deception then transformed claim slips into promise slips, where the slips were traded for claim value and not promise value. This results in either a bankrun or inflation. Today replace gold for paper or electronic reserves and claim slips for demand deposits, and you understand the fraud to which banks operate as. Their wealth permeates our life, and creates sever economic distortions where those trade their labor at an unequal ratio to these parasites.

7. Interest: Just as the money supply remains a fixed as a piece of pie, the money owners can use their pieces of pie to acquire other pieces of pie. This is flawed as the pie is only so big, and loans are destined to fail as the money supply gets consumed. That principal + interest owed could exceed the money supply illustrates failures are inherit to the system. Expanding the money supply is flawed as that money ends up in the paws of the owners and increases the interest cost on money which exacerbates the situation.

8. Initiation of force: Capitalism locks this in. Flawed misallocations of resources that led to present wealth are deemed irrelevant, like as following the civil war, even though slavery was deemed not right, the fruits of labor were still held by those who didn't slave.

9. Capitalist can't make up their mind whether government is a good thing or a bad thing. The classical capitalist derides government as a thief, but at the same time needs government to lock in their version of who has what. 

10. Intellectual property: This can develop the same problems that land/labor/capital/money/ and all ownership has with monopolies. Money derived from the property ends up in the properterian's coffers due to their control over the economy. An idea can't be owned. Say I patent a windmill. This is absurd as the idea that the wind can provide helpful energy already existed. What I did was to observe the truth and not create it. If another creates his windmill by what right do I have to say he must pay me money or be jailed? Even if he didn't design the windmill, why should he when the design already exist? It would be ludicrous to give caveman Thrag a multimillion dollar patent for inventing the wheel when another could have done it. Say one claimed to invent and own 1's and 0's. Surely we would see him now as an economic parasite, but those indoctrinated would state he deserved to be wealthy because of "all his hard work" (probably the idea even cam from an employee and not him). All ideas already exist and man just observe such. It is silly to think they could own the idea. Same deal with sharing of MP3's, which also ties in the idea of sunk cost. If I'm not going to buy a CD for one track, my inability acquire that one track represent incredible inefficiency. If a bookseller stops distributing a book, or if a video game producer stopped distributing a Zelda game, why in the least should they be able to allow this intellect to fallow, when nobody gains? If all videos, books, magazines were held online, wasted resources to security like librarians to guard books and wasted paper in their construction could be vanquished. Access to information would be incredible.
    
    The capitalist reasoning is quickly destroyed with a simple mental exersize. Is lending out a book, "stealing"? Of course not. But letting another read "your" book is no different than letting another listen to "your music" via mp3's. This leads to one of two conclusion to which either, the "intellectual property" label doesn't hold up, as if you can't share such, how does it exist as "your property"... Or if it is a "user fee" for the idea, then why is it ok to give"your" book to another?

11. Information Hoarding: An idea does not have to be owned to cause problems in a capitalist economy. Say I am the only one that knows the combination to a safe that stores wealth for the populace. The efficient thing would be to share the combination for others. With capitalism the combination is hoarded, to the populaces detriment. I essentially own the wealth, even though my labor contribution of knowing the combination is a negligible one. For this reason, secrets then become valuable. Does the boss want the employees to know what each others are paid? No, for they would be in trouble. Does the salesman want the customer to know what he paid initially for the product? No, for information is power. 

12. Resource Depletion: Without a holistic focus, the capitalist focuses entirely on profits and growth like a cancer. All things being equal, the managers of a corporation would prefer that resources were used correctly. However, when a manager is getting pressure to boost sagging share prices or have be replaced, these concerns will not be at the forefront of their mind. Be it with topsoil, oil, forest, rainforest, fisheries, etc... there is no counterincentive not to gorge oneself.

13. Mobility: In a capitalist society this is controlled to the benefit of the landowner. This is proven by stating that land as a long thin line could have value even though its area was practically zero. Say I bought up the streets surrounding another's house. They would have no choice but to pay high tithes just to get off the land. How can the landowner who contributed nothing be able to receive the wealth of those on the move? A popular idea is that roads should be owned more directly by propertarians. In such a case, what I would do would be to buy up a thin line that surrounded a metropolis, and charge exorbitant prices to exit and enter the suburbs. The current system sort of alleviates the problems of turning property into a big game of Go, but residual effects still linger.

14. Shared facilities: Say an airport is sold. What the airlines will do is get territorial with each other and lobby the owner to have exclusive access to all the terminals. The premium paid by the airlines to exclude competition will then be recouped by the monopolistic prices that the airline can charge as the only game in town. Should competition build another airline, this represents inefficiency, as resources are wasted on a new building, where only greed keeps the current facilities from being properly utilized.

15. Connections: Much of capitalism is not what you know, but who you know. Roughly 90% of jobs are attained through networking. Not being able to receive the fruit of ones labor, because they are not in the Good ole boys network represents inefficiency.

16. Inheritance: Say caveman Thrag digs an irrigation channel. He then lays claim on this channel and then gives it to his offspring who give to their offspring, and so until modern day has it that Thrag the 534th is a modern day billionaire. The descendent did not work for the inheritance so why should it be his? Take the Queen of England, one of the richest women in the world. She could flick her fingers and workers could sweat and toil to construct her a massive statue. She has contributed nothing to the economy, so by what right does she have to extract the labor of others?
    
    Put another way, if I give my labor to another, it is still in essence mine, as I was creator of the authority to delegate such. This is evidenced if should another argue that I gave the labor to him, to which I reply with my power, state which has who's claim. With my passing, passes my claim, and the subsequent claims, based on my claims.

17. Specialization: With capitalism comes specialization. This is necessary as it creates dependency on that which one isn't specialized in, further enriching those in control. The more ignorant people are, the more helpless they are, and will be forced to work the same mind numbing work for the benefit of others. Furthermore what needs to be produced gets distorted as those who can't appreciate the toil behind some product are then willing to purchase the item where they wouldn. t have had they empathized with the labor.

18. Wasted Resources on Security: Hoards upon hoards of resources are put into protecting wealth and this represents wasted. Do we need a checkout person, the judge, locks, the librarian, fences, dogs, guns, insurance, etc...?

19. Capitalism Promotes Cannibalization: When capitalization promotes growth it is a common mistake to feel that the sole source of growth stems from their contributions, but from extracting wealth from others. In a pure capitalist society an organ company needing lucrative organs kills others for these organs. This isn't for greater benefit and yet will boost stock price. Or say the shareholders cut pay to employees by 20 million dollars. While this reflects higher stock price, the corporation hasn't given the economy any growth, but resources have merely switched into more concentrated hands.

20. Feudalism:  Pure capitalism is feudalism.

21. Shared Cost/Shared Benefits: Say a corporation moves to town. The local restaurant gets a boost in profits, through no contribution of its own and if the corporation leaves, the reduced profits given to the restaurant are not part of the equation. This means misallocation of resources and inefficiency.

22. Unemployment: Just as it is efficient for the bank to keep cash reserves on hand, or for a person to keep reserve money on hand, or for the retail owner to keep reserve items on hand, so it is for the capitalist to keep reserve employees on hand. Another rather unfortunate side effect of capitalism is that the layoffs/firings do not reflect their true impact on the economy. The unemployment cost must be carried by the employee as well the transition cost the employee must take to exist one industry to enter another. If employee generated a 12% rate of return for the employer and they decide to go another direction to get a 14% rate of return, to which the employee must work in another industry that he can only contribute a 3% rate of return, this represents efficiency. If in a downturn a farmer loses out he can't merely plug himself into the role of say a rail worker.

23. Unpredictable Events: If a twister takes out the town down the road, how do you have more of a claim to exclusion of capital then does the town down the road? If King Kong steps on car A, but misses car B, how could owner B be able to exclude person A from using the car? Say my ship is wrecked and I am stranded in the ocean. Along comes a ship that offers to rescue me if I give them 60,000 dollars, even though the cost to rescue you is insignificant... Again this isn't created wealth, but cannibalized wealth which is inefficient. Same deal if my car breaks down in on a desolate desert highway. A rare car sees me, but offers aid contingent upon being fabulously enriched. A natural society would have the reward for aiding the stranded person be that they would know the other would help them if the tables were turned, but instead the capitalist use the opportunity to extract wealth from others.

24. Reliance on Supply and Demand: Supply and Demand sends inaccurate signals as to what needs to be done. First it reflects not true supply, but what the capitalist own. Demand is whimsical and incoherent. Further it is a reflection of that wanted by those in control. Supply and demand also ignores money, which as an intermediary as its own supply and demand. It would be absurd for an economist to calculate the likes of supply and demand for say castle walls for the feudal lord, when the lord's rightful claim on wealth has not been established or the slavelike conditions of the serf put to scrutiny.

25. Deception: This is rewarded with capitalism. Be it with buying a product, buying an investment, or buying a service; there exist a conflict of interest for the seller not to deceive. Manager A puts all ingredients on the label while manager hides an ingredient known to be toxic... Who gets the raise? Only with capitalism could the likes of a ponzi scheme take place.

26. Hinders Economies of Scales: Since concentrating control in that hands of the few results in being gypped, wealth is wastefully duplicated across the economic spectrum. Look at a car... The majority of its time is spent sitting and doing nothing, a horrible waste... Or look at a lake front and all the docked and idle boats. Had the owners been willing to share the boats, they could have communally devoted a lot less resources for these boats, while enjoying the same amount of boating time.

27. Lawsuits and Lawyers: An unfortunate side effect of capitalism, since with capitalism the government owns the property it must constantly entertain complaints from its citizens as to who can exclude who from what property. For this government must create a body of law so hideously complex only those who pass government test can practice it and even they don. t have a clue as to how it operates. The McDonald's woman was the tip of the iceberg. All lawsuits represent unnatural law and therefore they should be abolished.

28. Pollution:  Being able to get rich by externalizing pollution is another flaw.

29. Crime: Inequities of power, breed crime as does unequal access to resources.

30. Politics: Inefficient effort is wasted on pleasing the boss. If we were to produce the same labor or service on our own accord, production would be much more natural. Only in capitalism would one be loath to train their potential replacement. The employee does not produce to make the general populace and himself happy, but to follow rules that once were means to an end, and have been grossly distorted into ends unto themselves. The employee's effort is first and foremost to control the variables that affect his appearances to the boss as opposed to creating value. This is woefully inefficient.

31. Distorts emphasis on Luxuries: Inequality of wealth through ownership leads to riches which leads to excessive consumption of luxuries. If I own an island to which another is stranded, the fees, that they pay to avoid trespass and to consume the naturally growing pears and grapes of the island, gives the ability to me to add a second home to my assets, even though I would never build it on my own.

32. Promotes Hierarchy: For their to be have's there must be have nots. For there to be bosses there must be subordinates. For there to be rich, there must be poor. Everybody can't start their own business as businesses need workers. Even tremendous advances in technology wouldn't change this. 

33. That which is owned must always generate a profit: If I own the water supply, as an efficient capitalist I don't give it away, but charge the most profitable prices possible. If a road built in Roman times were to be capitalized, it would still require profits today even though there are no variable cost to it. If a utility sets up a power station like a dam or windmill where the upkeep is negligible to the point of being practically non-existent, customers will be milked for as long as those generators exist. Same dilemma with an owned internet. If a business breaks even, unless it can turn around it will be sacked for its inability to provide profits to the owner. The owner sees the opportunity cost of the time value of money and puts his wealth in other areas. There is never a chance to be free.

34. Inability of customer to ascertain value: The customer has no clue as to the markup. How do they know how much potato chips cost? The price of other potato chips? That can't be, for that would be a definition using the defined word. The customer is doomed to be bilked. Indeed if every customer saw the markup price, the economy would probably turn upside overnight.

35. The media has to be owned: That which we depend on for the news, must at the same time be a lucrative tool to make a bum rich. A nasty conflict of interest indeed. This is why we see on the nightly news ads for a hot new prescription drug, then a news story about a hot new drug, then more drug adds, more drug stories, and all the good stories get weeded out. Same deal with other information sources like bookstores. Now media can bilk its followers even more it cooperates, so what we have is mega, mega, mega media conglomerates, where huge amounts of power are concentrated in very few hands. This means there are a lot of toes to step on. Think if GE has exploding washers, we are going to hear about from it subsidiary NBC? Nooooooo. Banking barons sit on each of big three's board of directors meaning we will never hear anything bad on these inherently corrupt institutions. Now if I'm a drug company with a dangerous (but lucrative) drug and I want to expand, do I buy the glue factory which generates a 15% return or the TV conglomerate that generates a 15% return plus I can suppress potentially embarrassing news coverage? The conclusion is quite simple... This distorts the allocation of resources and messes up the economy.

36. Ownership of the airwaves: The airwaves are also divided up into property which messes things up as well. The airwaves intrinsically belong to no one and when government says they do, the results are nasty. By what right does business A have to exclude others from using "their" segment of the waves? The spectrum existed before the owner did and will exist after the owner dies. So what we have is the airwaves being willing unloaded to get-rich-quick-schemers and not being free. So what we have on radio is dumb music, sports talk, bad news, and political babble. Why? Because they are relatively cheap to produce, making the owner rich even though another would gladly give more than the owner for the ability to use the spectrum. TV has the same deal where there exist dumb daytime talk, dumb soaps, dumb news, dumb dramas, and dumb sitcoms. Their intention is to be able to brainwash the viewer to buy as much junk with the advertising as possible with as little cost as possible, which clearly isn't in the public's interest.

37. Needs police and military: Capitalism is like a board game. The government haphazardly dumps pieces all over the board (with most falling off the board), stating the rules of acquisition, and starting the game where they act as a referee. Others get lots of territory while others must slave with but their labor to have a tiny piece of territory. Some may recognize the rules as fiat and disobey them to which government then punishes them with the police and military. The police and especially the military are a mind blowing expense, that if vanquished would reveal tremendous amounts of wealth or labor free time to the populace.

38. Reputation has a lag time: The argument that reputation keeps companies in line is silly. Customer's are clueless as to corporate behavior and the shareholders are keen to keep it this way. Plus what does corrupt corporation A have to worry about when corporation B is corrupt too? Also, if I buy shabby jets now for the airline and one crashes 15 years down the road, that is 15 years of above average profits. Once the plane goes into the swamp, I just change my corporate name, and things are as good as new. If I send out a cancer creating drug who's effects aren't felt until 20-30 years down the road that is an economic distortion to the capital owner. s favor.

39. Capitalism ignores benefits from surroundings. Say there is person A and person B. Person A has a mother who consumes drugs during pregnancy and their foot is deformed pretty badly. Person B is born to a mother who takes no drugs and is healthy. B's comparative advantage is not derived from that which they created, but which the environment created, so how could B argue the advantage by its nature belongs to him? The roles could have been reversed... Or say a village teaches person A how to purify water, while B does not. How can A charge money to give this information to B, when it was his surroundings that were not his creation but the environment. s creation, that gave this knowledge to him?

40. Labor is inadequately defined: If one is brought on as a clerk, there duty is essentially guard duty and yet when the business is slow, they will engage in pointless endeavors as to please the manager like cleaning the counter for the umpteenth time. Or a janitor whose prime duty is to perhaps keep the bathrooms clean, will engage the majority of his days in pointless endeavors like cleaning already clean carpets and sweeping already clean floors. These pointless activities are all a waste of labor.

41. The tax structure needed to support capitalism is inherently flawed. There is no perfect way to allocate taxes, there are always ways around them, evading the taxes misallocates resources, and tax preparation is to the economy a non-value adding activity. How does one differentiate between eating tax exempt company food and taxable personal income food? How does one differentiate between driving to work in the tax exempt company vehicle or driving to work in a personal car? It's too crazy. The endeavor to come up with a perfect tax is analogous to trying to fit a square on a circle, and can't be done.

42. Bribery: All capitalist exchanges are bribes. It can be ovet like a supplier bribing the retailer to lock out competitor products or subtle where a newspaper journalist won't be bribed if they include boat tipping material. It can be creating a subconscious idea of indebtedness like giving a key client buying agent free meals, or with politicians creating a sense of indebtedness with politics... Hmmm... If I vote for that bill all those nice people that were willing to part with their money for me could go out of business. That can't be good... Campaigns are expensive and without money I might lose! I'm a good politician so society would suffer without my presence so any shortcomings of my bill must be marked off as acceptable losses.

43. Capitalism doesn't create economic hubs: If a bakery acts as a hub for grain suppliers to distributors, their importance is not reflective of their function. Had they not created that bakery another would have. If one hadn't created that airport another would have. If one had created that newspaper, another would have. The hub benefits from economies of scales it truly doesn't own. With this economies of scale they make entrance into their industry not so lucrative, even though it is their customers and consumers that give the hub idea value. With a group of musicians, is it the director that gives the group value? No, he just waves his hands in a negligible contribution. It is the members themselves that give the group value. Now say the director gets dictatorial and orders members to do 60 pushups before practice. The individual members are in a quandary as to whether to take off. If they leave, they leave the fellow talent that was the reason they were there to began with. If they stay and not join another group, then they have to suffer under the artificial hierarchy of control. Another example: Say there is a community volleyball league. A manager runs it whose contribution is negligible, like team A vs team B, as opposed to team B vs team C scheduling. If the manager starts being fascist, what are the players to do? They are there not for the manager but each other. Do I as a team think about leaving? In all likelihood no, as the other teams were the reason I was there to began with. This becomes a tricky paradox, much like do you vote for the lessor of two evil politicians or vote for your favorite choice, even though that could have the worst politician winning. The economies of scale the league enjoys belongs to them and not the owner. Just as it isn't a bulletin board owner who owns the value of membership, but he merely acts as a hub, where the gap that exist with transferring and startup cost, to the level of misery he can inflict, creates a window for his bilking.

44. Work repetition: Non-capitalist society don't have factory like conditions where one waste their day in the same dreary routine.

45. Conflict of interest in creating long lasting products: Why should a shoe manufacture create a shoe that last a long time? As soon as the shoe wears out, the customer goes and buys another one! If Microsoft creates the perfect OS without bugs, they are screwed. Their business model of gypping consumers into buying a new OS every 3 years (they are trying to get that down to 2), would be dead and their stock price would plummet. A complex OS however means royalties on thick user guides! Microsoft spent big bucks to have their programmers totally reprogram Word 2000 to make sure its documents were gibberish to 97. Got to get those 97 versions out of office and 2000 in! MS like many software companies does not support its older software as it competes with itself. The security problems of Word 97 were not patched, but suggested by Microsoft to upgrade to 2000. M$ is not the only parasite that has a conflict of interest in creating lasting value, and this is inherit to many corporations. Does the accountant want to explain the tax law as to scare away future customers? Does the doctor want to cure the patient? Does the corporation want to give out its suppliers to its customers?

46. Flaws in getting employees: Not only is the majority of employment by who you know and not what you know, but the job search and interview process is messed up. Clueless HR majors try to ascertain a potential employee based on a short conversation, a fraudulent piece of paper, and a silly set of clothes (mark my words, the suit will go the way of the pork pie hat). Those that know that they don't know are rejected, while those who don't know that they don't know shine in their exaggeration and lies. Clueless hiring managers, (they have to be clueless otherwise they wouldn't be hiring managers), interpret their confidence as wonderful thing and hire them on. It is survival of the most ignorant and deceptive, quite the fitting entry to enter the corporate world.
    
    Upon being hired, the worker is in a constant state of discomfort as he fears the perception of the supervisor, as that determines whether he goes or can get another job. His focus is not how he contributes, but controlling the perception of how he contributes, which exist a world of difference. Should I empoy elsewhere, but what motivation does the previous employer have to give an accurate appraisel? The threat of a bad appraisel gives them controll over the labor, which benifits him, as does not having his labor leave. With the importance of references, this gives the artificial structure of capitalism more ability to separate one's consumption from their work.

47. Long work days: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Christopher Columbus would all make remarks as to the incredible short work days of the not very capitalistic natives. They worked just around 4 hours a day, and could devote the rest of the day to leisure.

48. The conflicting nature of stolen wealth: A tenant of capitalistic law is that stolen property no matter how many times exchanged can not become unstolen. Fascinating considering this doesn't apply to the original acquisition of land or capital or money under duress. If I state I own South America, my claim is obviously false. If I sell a chunk of South America to one who gives me labor in return, his chunk of South America is also stolen and is not legit. Basically this idea continues until the populace forgets or becomes convenient for key individuals to lock in the ownership into the now.

49. Competition: The premise is that competition is a cure all. Company A won't bilk you, for Company B will come galloping to your rescue. The Nobel winning prize of Games Theory sheds some light into this... If A and B split own an island and a shipwreck occurs spilling 10 wreckees on each side, and we both charge these victims 10 picked and sliced coconuts to breath "our" island air, there exist no incentive for us to engage in a price war. Let's say we did... I get greedy and lower my price to 9 to steal B's victims. All of them then come over to my side. B will not just take this, so they will lower or match their price with no one having the advantage. We now charge less coconut labor and have less profits then before. This is obvious so we don't engage in a bidding war to start with, for we are both to lose. Instead we collaborate to raise prices. If A raises prices it is in B's interest to also raise prices since unsustainable price disparities would cause A to relower prices and victims would boomerang back to him. The victim. s congratulate themselves like the fools they are over having a choice, but the choice to choose your slavemaster is no choice at all.  

50. Inability to control business: If a capitalist does unethical actions the argument goes that the consumer can punish him by not purchasing the products. This only goes so far. First I can be affected by say the chemical company producing components for a yacht, and yet I just can't argue that I will not buy yachts. Secondly there is the issue of competition. If I don't want a toxic substance in my food, and if the competition also puts that substance in that particular food item, I can't just pick and choose. Also many of the deeds committed that a populace wouldn't care for are hidden from scrutiny in the day to day operations and distant supply chains. How do I know about a cleaning agent that a factory uses on their equipment. I can't just "vote" with my purchase something like that. Even if a company makes a marginal change, like a fast-food restaurant using glass cups or having people bring their own cups, would not be recognized. If polluting company A pollutes from 1000 units to 500 units, do I "vote" for them because they lowered their pollution by 500, or not vote for them because they produce 500 units?

51. That which is deemed to be exclusive wealth must extract labor: Say on a desert island with two survivors a video game falls from the sky. This is good as this will provide entertainment... Under a wise system the two would share the game. Under capitalism one spots it falling from the sky first and deems it his. For the other to please him he must offer his labor to which he wouldn't have done had they shared the item. Scenerio A has both enjoying the game and no labor, while scenerio B has the capitalist hording the wealth, to extract wastefull labor (like making the capitalist a nice hut that wouldn't have been done without the game). To sum this up, capitalism puts an overemphasis on labor.

52. Capitalism societies are materalistic: This stems from two causes. The first being that the tresspass premium paid to use/occupy that which the "owner" truely didn't have, must be added onto the system as opposed into the system. Since those without materialistic controll must make other materialist objects more attractive to gain access to materialism for themselves, this nets in greater materialism. The second reason being that since capitalism creates little monopolies on carears as the sole source to access land and communal capital, this results in specialization which disconnects the worker from the product. With this the worker doesn't appreciate the work the hamburger flipper does, and consumes the product although he wouldn't have, had he worked the grill himself.

53. Capitalism overemphasises investement. In a non-capitalist society investment is only undertaken to foward the benifits of labor. With capitalism it is a tool to capitalize and to grow. The capital is used as a tool to controll others made possible through the power to exclude granted from the government. As my power to exclude grants my wealth, it allows me to exclude some more with my new found wealth, and the virus multiplies. This has nothing to do with laboring all in one year to build a hut as opposed to building part each year, as to acceralate the benifits. The power granted from the government makes investment the tool of choice for those chosen to controll land and communal capital. Finance is skewed in this aspect... It represents not a helping hand that can give you leverage, but the means by which those who have controll, can extract your labor. Taking out debt/issuing equity doesn't necesarily mean your investing in the economy... If the feudal land baron charges a 100 gold per year in rent as to opposed to a 100 gold in interest does it make a difference?

54. Capitalism discourages a minimalist life style. Say I am one of those mystics that can go without food. That I don't have any necesities, doesn't nullify the fact that in a capilist world I will have to produce anyways. My mere being means even by just dwelling the land and demanding nothing in return, I have to pay a tresspass (aka rent) fee. Now add a very small necesity and you will find that I can't escape merely working a small job for my small necesity. There is again the land tresspass fee, but this time there will be an extra fee to use communal resources. Indeed as the capitalist sees his peasents stop eating, wearing clothes (an extreme example), he panics and raises the capital utilization fee, where the peasents still have to work the same amount, but recieve less.

55. With capitalism you are born tresspassing: You enter a world controlled by others where you exist by their good grace or in their servitude. This is the only way ownership can be used. If your lucky, your parents won't sue you for birthing pains (suing being capitalistic), charge you for the hospital bills, charge you for the clothes, (or put your "expenses" on a debt system to be paid when older).

56. The government is not the only institution that tells you who owns what (owning being capitalist). The dogmatic church preaches subserviance to a God and his faithfull messanger, where your actions are owned by him. The family hiarchy dictates who owns what. If a kid thinks poloshing daddy's boots are dumb, he is screwed, for daddy is the capitalist of the house, which makes him dictator (sometime benavolount) over the kid. The same deal with a matriachle situation or where a kid takes advantige of a parant they are taking care of. Indeed whereever there is hiarchy, there exist ownership and capitalism. Stalin was a capitalist. Had he incorporated the Soviet Union, with him as chief shareholder, and done his same actions, the capitalist wouldn't complain, while the communism would start their complaints about such a system, even though the previous system netted no complaints.

57. Capitalist is not kind to giving. Instead of giving and recieving directly we do through an intermediary of capital controll. When the benifits are not communally owned it is difficult (but not impossible) to give communal benifits in turn, or giving without expectations of recieving. A case to make clear: If on the alien world, "Capital", I own rights to breath air (breathing air necesitates a tresspass fee), while others own rights to the following: beating your heart, sweating, having fingers, land, water, and host of other activities. With a communal system I would not controll the water, for I have no need to controll it. If I relinquish my ability to controll heart beating in a capitalist society I'm am sort of at a disadvantige. (Although this could be the very action needed to break up the system.) With this system I am scared to give up my controll for I fear being controlled by others. This feeds on itself as the very controll I seek in protection creates the situation I despise. Alas, I am disconnected with cause and effect, for I do only that in my immidiate interest.

58. Capitalism depends on those who to want more. If say a real estates billionare wants to be entertained by burning up his rental homes, the populace is screwed. Or put another the only way we can keep the capitalist from consuming his capital, by offering a service that will add to his treasure chest more than the pleasure received from consuming the capital. If the capitalist want most of the farmland cleared as it a eyesore, or he wants to build a themepark there, thosewithout are screwed. They can keep the farmer from converting most (exception leaving farmland for the capitalist owner) to a themepark, by slaving to entertain the capitalist with the figurtive juggling to which the capitalist lets the tenants use what is "his". A peasent requires the baron to have need of their labor, while the greed of the baron makes the such need an eploititive one. If the baron gets greedy and wants the peasents to contruct a castle they are screwed... If the baron decides to let all but land for himself to run fallow, the peasents are again screwed. A nasty game indeed.

59. Feedback is difficult with capitalism: The marketor only knows vaguely what the consumer wants. He must spend an inordinate amount of money to research this and he frequently gets it wrong. He depends not on what the populace wants but on previous sales/profit patterns and his personal preference which don't coincide with the peasents taste. If I as majority society didn't announce a boycott of food items with artificial food coloring it is doubtful the marketors would catch on. They would attribute it to not enough advertising or being too expensive, and would totally miss it. Marketers know they are disconnected with the populace and go to great expense to set up testing which ultimitly proves inadadequete compared to a system that directly gave and directly recieved. With the beuracrat you have an individual also clueless as to what the consumer wants, as he can not figure out what you need a thousand miles away in his capital.

60. Technological advances are punished: If on the island that I own, my wage slave grows me my food, and I discover a robot that will do all the work, the laborer is sort of screwed. While on a holistic level the technology is beneficial, it isn't with uneven access to resources that is created with capitalism. In a non-capitalist society this technology would mean more free time. In a capitalist, it means less. The laborer must now find another contribution. That this contribution wasn't pursued when the wage-slave was growing crops testifies as to its lessor worth. Therefore to make up against this lessor worth, the wage-slave must work harder and longer days.

61. Promotes Hiearchy: As long as the system of capitalism persist, ther must always be a system of hiearchy and controll. The boss can have the worker do whatever whim passes in his mind. He can have him dance a jig, jump through hoops, make a fool of him, and have the worker in a constant state of fear of being fired. Such an unnatural situation that contradicts, "do unto others, as you would do to yourself", makes for a horrible economy.

62. The capitalist argument that taxes = theft is flawed: The state can very much be the thief the capitalist is, but in the context of the capitalist arguements of maintaning the status quo of property ownership, this is messed up. If taxes = theft, then there must exist stolen property. If there exist stolen property, then certain people, (virtually all), have claims that should not be. How then could the capitalist complain that such sancity is being violated when the source of wealth is a good deal derived from the source they detest? If a capitalist A, has a car "stolen" from capitalist B, no capitalist judge would complain should A "steal" the car back. If taxes are created by theft, then how can taxes on such theft be theft? At a minimum, the capitalist to be consistent with their claim on property should argue for a tax on "stolen" tax wealth, to create a transfer payment back to the victom. What I'm getting at is the inconsistancy, which the mark of a flawed arguement.

63. Economies of scale: How does the capitalist own such? If person A and B by themselves produce 1 unit of labor a peice, but cooperating produce 3 together, who is to say that extra unit belongs to one or another? That product was a result of cooperation, so should it not be cooperation that decides to how to appropriate such? Unfortinitly the capitalist takes this, as they argue that their component is a part of the pie, while missing the other components of the pie.

64. Capitalism creates ecnomic distortions: The feudal lord can demand from his claim on land, that the townsfolk create him a nice castel. The castel does not serve aggraget benifit from aggrate contributions. Now days, a shareholder who gets billions from the workers in the capitalist system, might spend his extra money on yachts that he wouldn't have. This creates a distortion of overproducing yachts, which means their will be overproducing of chemicals to produce the hull, which will mean an overproduction of railroads to move the chemicals around the land, and so on down... Commodities important in an equitable labor exchange ratio like free time get trounced.

65. Captilism is an institution and all institions serve one purpose only and that is to promote their own security. Capitalism has devolved from a means to an end, to an end to itself.

66. Jobs are skewed to obtain resources, and not to create resources. This is the real reason so many don't enjoy their work, for they can't identify with that which they claim to create.

67. There must be CEO's in capitalism, just as there must be grunt work jobs: If I clone anybody, a "good" worker or a bad "worker" to seed a capitalist economy, the structure remains the same which suggest role players owe there existance to the system and not because they were so much more hardworking then those lazy bums on the street. The arguement that you to can be a ceo, and that if you aren't it is because you are to lazy, is innacurate as the sytem needs those laboring in the coal mines, cleaning toilets, working construction, flipping hamburgers, etcs for the other positions to exist.

68. Perpetual unemployment: Keynosian economics suggest that the capitalist will generate their highest exploitation/growth/profits when there exist unemployed/underemployed constantly searching for more jobs, as this keeps labor prices down. If this should be accurate, then it wouldn't matter if a society was filled with utra-intellegent, hardworking identical clones, for there will always exist some out on the street, panicking to get that job, before the landlord kicks them out, as there will exist some going for yacht rides as the workers prop up their share price. A reflection of the system, and not their contributive worth.

69. Deception: The capitalist that masters this rises to the top, while those who are honest in the dog eat dog world, go nowhere.

70. That the 'multiplier effect' justifies wealth in the hands of the few:  This makes no sense as everything as a multiplier effect.  If I smash a window, the window repairmen is provided with revenue, who provides the car dealership with revenue, who provides the carpentar with revenue, and so on.  Does this mean we have to destroy property?  If ten of us land on an island and one should proclaim it his, we would scoff at him.  If he argues that his wealth would be justified as he would spend his wealth on our labor, he would still be scoffed at.  It is absurd to argue that the medeivle land baron deserves gold more as he would spend it on the peasant's labor 'allowing them so spend more.  Even stuffing money under a mattress has a multiplier effect.  Should my goldship with a tenth of the nation's gold supply sink, my loss in another's gain.  There money will be worth more, creating their own multiplier.  Neither trickle down nor the idea that decreasing taxes, increases tax revenue, actually function as proclaimed...    More taxes equals more government spending, which just (aside from possible inefficiencies arising from the transition of one label to another), means an increased cash flow to offset the one that was lost. If government taxes 99% of your income to which you buy government cars, government houses, etc... How would one form of spending be different than another? The spending side of tax financing should indeed disprove Reagonimcs that less taxes equals more taxes. Debt financing is also no free lunch as what that would do in the economy on its own is nullified to pay for the tax cut. And that the debt wouldn. t be pursued in a natural economy testifies to its greater economic hardship. Reagonomics is extra bad considering capitalist critiques (as covered) that point out taxes are kind of a way of reversing the corporate welfare sham (AKA capitalism) to the rich, and without such we get a runaway greenhouse effect to a feudalist economy.

71. Time represents another variable that allocates wealth independitly of an capitalist claim.  If I am born early and am able to build work experience and business connections in the roaring 20's, I will fare better than somebody born later, entering the workforce in the 30's without such experience, but my experience was a gift to me, as such how could my claim on wealth be superior to his?  When the baby boomer stop producing, tap their retirement funds, crash the bond and equity markets (as investments are ponzi schemes depending on buyers, so with lots of sellers and little buyers...), and so forth.  As a one enjoyed wealth in these early years, does one deserve it compared to another who arrives after the crash?   What if country X decides to create a money  supply.  They give each of their 100 units of money.  At first glance this seems equitable...  But what about the emigrant that lands without such money?  What about one who was born after this money was 'equatably' dibursed?  Without money, they are toast...  So a million years from now, you have those wealthy from those who amused the initial money holders, stole from them, inherited from them and so on...  An alien who crashes, must labor extra hard as he is out of the loop, and must take out a loan to have access to money to receive the fruit of his own labor. 

72. Doesn't GDP growth equal economic wellbeing?  GDP mesures just that, Gross domestic product (and imperfectly at that).  Perpetual growth is an oxymoron, that doesn't take into account working conditions, distribution of resources, irrational materialism, or number of working hours.  The capitalist likes the GDP derivitive as this means "their" wealth is extracting other wealth in a snowball like manner.

73. Isn't Stalinism different than capitalism?  Not really...  Had Stalin incorporated all Soviet land/capital/money  into Soviet inc. with himself as the big shareholder, then it is doubfull the capitalist would have complained.  The laborer is in trouble for without the means of production, they will have to labor in servtitude, to  convice the owner/dictator to release the spigot.  The capitalist needs government to exclude the populas from the capital, and little would change with Soviet inc.  Approriate deterrent in property law/beaurcat law, would exist as gulags, just as it did with the Stalin show, and little has changed.  Stalin's vision is the people's course whether they like it or not, whether he is heading up centralization or heading up his  corporate empire.    The businessman is the capitalist beauracrat...  The populace can't just buy there way out, as Stalin controlls the stock and hence the price would be prohibitvly high to buy.  The command economy, or capitalist economy are both flawed as they are symptoms of the hiearchy disease...

74. What about all the 'capitalist' champions that have thought about this issue?  Often quoted by capitalist, lets hear their ideas...
    
    

    Another means of silently lessening the inequality of [landed] property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise.
    
    --Thomas Jefferson

    
    
    

    Ground rents are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Ground rents are, therefore, perhaps a species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.
    
    --Adam Smith

    
    
    

    ...if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them, and they might serve to afford him conveniences of life.
    
    The same measures governed the possession of land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other.
    
    John Locke 

    
    
    
    

    Classical economy erred when it assigned land a distinct place in its theoretical scheme. Land is, in its economic sense, a factor of production, and the laws determining the formation of the prices of land are the same that determine the formation of other forms of production.
    
    Ludwig von Mises

    
    
    

    Ayn Rand
    
    Fundamental to any system called capitalist are the relations between private owners of nonpersonal means of production (land, mines, industrial plants, etc., collectively known as capital) [emphasis Rand's]

    
    
    (Also, supposedly, Randian utopia, Galt's Gulch, was financed entirely from, land rents to pay for the government defense and such. Perhaps she knew...)
    
    Milton Friedman was critical of mixing land with labor, and would even state,  

    While I agree that private claims to unproduced resources are morally problematical, I don't see how a government's claim is any less problematical.

    
    
    And he also argues it exist as a "small amount", but he acknowledges, what if a liberal had said, they would be written off as a Marxist.
    
    
    Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt.
    
    Benjamin Franklin
    
    
    
    Probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rough rules of thumb, above all the principle of laissez-faire.
    
    Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom" p.18 U of Chicago Press 1972
    
    
    
    I am the last person to deny that increased wealth and the increased density of population have enlarged the number of collective needs which government can and should statisfy.
    
    Hayek, New Studies
    
    
    
    Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds.
    
    Thomas Paine
    
    
    
    Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.
    
    Adam Smith
    
    
    
    [What Hayek] does not see, or will not admit, [is] that a return to "free" competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the State. The trouble with competitions is that somebody wins them. Professor Hayek denies that free capitalism necessarily leads to monopoly, but in practice that is where it has led, and since the vast majority of people would far rather have State regimentation than slumps and unemployment, the drift towards collectivism is bound to continue if popular opinion has any say in the matter.
    
    George Orwell, in a 1944 review of "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek and "The Mirror of the Past" by K. Zilliacus
    
    
    Lot's more from where those came from...  Anyways, these aren't exactly capitalist quotes, from supposed capitalist deep thinkers...