Which book makes the best factual arguments for capitalism? I am already sold on the ethical and philosophical arguments for the free-market such as personal liberty, the dangers of a large government, the immorality of progressive taxes etc. but now I want to venture into factual and historical proof of capitalism's efficiency. Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman and Basic Economics by Sowell don't have enough factual evidence for me.
>factual and historical proof of capitalism's efficiency
The irony is that this is basically what you can read Karl Marx for.
>>7718952
Mises does a good job for capitalism in Human Action.
>>7718952
serious bump here, I'm in the same position as OP
doesn't Ron Paul have a couple newish books on capitalism history?
>>7718983
not OP but please elaborate, I've never read Marx
>>7719344
If you can't understand Marx on this basic of a level, you might want to read more into political philosophy before deciding on being "sold on the ethical and philosophical arguments".
How about you go back to /pol/, you ignorant assholes?
>>7719371
I've just never read Marx, I spend too much time shitposting to read everything worth reading. I'm not sure whether I'd understand him or not, and I don't plan on being 'sold' by any arguments made on /lit/. I just want >>7718983 to explain how the world's best known opponent of capitalism's writings prove capitalism's efficiency.
>>7718952
jesus christ, op. if you're reading friedman and sowell and you're sure about your political views, i have some very bad news about the time ahead of you on this board
>>7718952
Factual arguments for the sort of neoliberal tripe espoused by walking corpses like Greenspan?
There aren't any
>>7719383
What do you mean? I don't go here very often, is it because /lit/ is leftist?
>>7719381
Not that dude. Capitalist here.
Marx did not say that capitalism wasn't efficient. He argued that eventually the system would collapse because he thought that there would be deepening economic downturns (although really, economic downturns increase in scope, not severity, due to increasing interconnectedness of markets). Eventually, the proletariat would rise up and establish communism.
Marx advocated free market capitalism because he thought it was lead to communism.
>>7719381
>I spend too much time shitposting to read everything worth reading.
Congratulations, you possess the virtue of humility. Basically, what you're looking for is a summary of Marx's view of capitalism in light of historical materialism. The only problem is, well, to give a really in-depth summary (which you'll need if we're going beyond memes) I'm going to have to write an essay, which I'm pretty sure neither of us want. You can get your own answers, and in all honesty it would be more educational; Marx isn't difficult, read the (extremely simplistic and easy, literally a pamphlet) Manifesto and then get started on Das Kapital. I'm not telling you to become a Communist (it amazes me how often people react like this), by the way; it's just considered basic decency to have read Marx before considering your own politico-philosophical disposition.
>the leftist rhetoric in this thread
>>7719393
It's worth noting that Marx did think that Capitalism was powerful and somewhat efficient, he just also thought it was going to a stepping stone towards the quasi-utopia of Communistic society. Capitalism was/is the highest stage of economic evolution in his model, and he credited it as such. He just also thought it was also destined to tear itself apart.
>>7719401
Did Marx Say Anything About Individualist Anarchism, M8?
>>7719408
Communism can't be individualistic. It's a communal ideology.
>corporations and individuals holding power over large swathes of people
>freedom
Lmao. We aren't going to have real freedom until we get rid of wealth and state.
>>7719421
>Mikhail "the Tankie in black" Bakunin
>he thinks he can have freedom without the state
>he thinks voluntary exchange under free market conditions = coercion
baka senpai
>>7719433
>he thinks he can have freedom without the state
You can't. So long as you let an elite rule over you, you will never have real freedom.
>he thinks voluntary exchange under free market conditions = coercion
>voluntary
Necessity=/=voluntary. Working in abhorrent conditions for the gain of the elite isn't freedom.
>>7719433
>>he thinks voluntary exchange under free market conditions = coercion
>>he thinks the threat of being left starving and homeless if you don't work isn't coercion
>>7719458
who is threatening you in that situation?
>>7719471
The entire system is designed to fuck over the majority of society.
>>7719471
The system of exchange setup where life has no intrinsic value on its own
And more directly, your boss and other potential bosses
>>7719472
I don't see where that fits in to the design of leaving people alone to take part in voluntary transactions
>>7719433
>he thinks that wedging in the words 'voluntary' and 'free' can dispel the compulsion underlying all economic activity in an advanced corporatocracy
wew lad
>>7719451
>>7719458
>Except in such instances of monopoly of an essential service, the mere power of withholding a benefit will not produce coercion. The use of such power may. . . make it necessary for me to reconsider all my decisions, perhaps to change my whole scheme of life and to worry about many things I had taken for granted. But, though the alternatives before me may be distressingly few and uncertain. . . yet it is not some other will that guides my action. I may have to act under great pressure, but i cannot be said to act under coercion. Even if the threat of starvation to me and perhaps to my family impels me to accept a distasteful job at a very low wage, even if I am 'at the mercy' of the only man willing to employ me, I am not coerced by him or anybody else. So long as the act that has placed me in my predicament is not aimed at making me do or not do specific things, so long as the intent of the act that harms me is not to make me serve another person's ends, its effect on my freedom is not different from that of any natural calamity.
there's no point in talking about the "free market," primarily because the business world is savvy enough to realize that they can use their enormous influence to bargain for state subsidies and bailouts.
first world countries look the way they do precisely because they did not adhere to free market principles in their early stages of development -- the US has an extensive history of protectionism/infant-industry protection. friedman's and hayek's ideas sound nice on paper until you realize that they have no relation to the ways economies develop in the real world, see: the disastrous effects of neoliberalism
>>7719517
Which is why you outlaw lobbying.
>>7719408
He gives a very thorough critique of Max Stirner, who himself was practically an individualist anarchist. Read the German Ideology
>>7719458
>being left starving and homeless if you don't work isn't coercion
so nature is oppressing you?
>>7719433
>>he thinks he can have freedom without the state
this, modern ancaps and "no true communists" piss me off so much because they don't know anything about history
we all know what happens with anarchy: feudalism
and now we have more weapons and technology than ever before
anarchy = power vacuum = ruling class will just be whoever is strongest
see also: ISIS
>>7719517
>use their enormous influence to bargain for state subsidies and bailouts.
you're right, that isn't "free market"
>>7720884
You may enjoy the recently published Black Earth from Snyder, the main thesis is that the holocaust was impossible without the preceding destruction of states or state institutions
I find the moral and ethical arguments for free markets fairly weak, but the factual much more convincing. Though I am not particularly aware of one book that encapsulates all the factual evidence for the benefits of capitalism, most important economics research/factual evidence is published in journals.
Why nations fail is generally quite good, centering around the importance of institutions on economic growth, tim harford does good pop econ books, so does paul krugman.
Steer clear of Friedman outside of his economically rigorous work (e.g. monetary history of the united states is fantastic). Also steer clear of the likes of sowell, mises, rothbard.
>>7719344
>>7719364
Commies actually kind of have a weird admiration for capitalism. They don't argue against its "efficacy" or anything. One of the most arresting things about capitalism, hell maybe the only real thing there is to say about capitalism, is that it's brutally effective. It dominates society, culture, everything. I'm not a Marxist or anything, but a lot of them see it this way. They usual admire its beauty or majesty despite whatever moral misgivings they have about it.
You might like this famous formulation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
It will have positive interpretations of it as well.
Also look into the second volume of Braudel's Civilisation and Capitalism trilogy.
>>7720879
Work is important, but capitalism is designed to make people have to take shitty, low paying jobs out of necessity. In a socialist society these jobs would still exist, but would have much better conditions and would be entirely voluntary.
>>7720884
Communism and anarchism would ensure, in theory, that anybody trying to harm the system would have their asses kicked by the community.
>>7718952
>Which book makes the best factual arguments for capitalism?
books about life under communism
>>7721002
Come on. Capitalism is giving low skilled worker a way to buy stuff but, out of everything that exists in the market, they get jobs that are easy and repetitive and pays not that well.
You're completely reversing the reality of the market. Because we have some good examples of capitalism vs socialism in history. Compare west and east Berlin and tell me which side you'd pick.
>>7721002
Why work then?
>>7721039
For the good of the community
>>7721002
>capitalism is designed
>>7721002
>In a socialist society these jobs would still exist, but would have much better conditions and would be entirely voluntary.
>>7721104
You think altruism is that powerful of a motivator in humans?
>>7719396
> Marx isn't difficult
PostDocs on phillosophy have problems reading Marx. I read it only for bragging rights. /lit/ is on another level
>hai, is there any book to confirm my own baseless opinions?
"Capitalism" is a buzzword invented by revolutionaries in the XIXth century to make propaganda for their cause, it's not unlike "Cultural Marxism" and it's use by /pol/
People who use the term unironically are all comunists, and that includes Milton Friedman.
>the immorality of progressive taxes
You do realize that the Austrians and the neoclassical economists introduced the logical justification of the concept of progressive taxation with marginal utility right?
>I was personally a pupil of … contemporary, friend and brother-in-law, Friedrich von Wieser. I was attracted by him, I admit, because unlike most of the other members of the Austrian school, he had a good deal of sympathy with a mild Fabian socialism to which I was inclined as a young man. He in fact prided himself that his theory of marginal utility had provided the basis of progressive taxation, which then seemed to me one of the ideals of social justice
-- F. A. Hayek
The classical economists were mostly opposed to the idea and favoured schemes like land-value taxation to raise revenue for the state.
>>7721375
>People who use the term unironically are all comunists, and that includes Milton Friedman.
This is right, Proudhon was the first to use the term, I don't think Marx actually used the word "capitalism" that much in his works though
>>7719433
>he thinks there is anything voluntary about participation in the free market
see ya kiddo
>>7719514
>But, though the alternatives before me may be distressingly few and uncertain. . . yet it is not some other will that guides my action. I may have to act under great pressure, but i cannot be said to act under coercion
yeah, this is just not correct even on its own terms lol
>>7719198
This.
Human Action by Mises has great arguments for capitalism, and is also quite easy to read.
>>7719517
False dichotomy. Market freedom indeces exist for a reason, some markets are "freeer" than others and people in those countries for some strange reason I cannot fathom are also more wealthy.
>>7721509
That's some circular reasoning right there. Wealthy nations are more liberal today because the wealthy and vested interests benefit from liberalism and the international system is structured in such a way that there's no realistic alternative. If you changed the rules of the game at an international level the whole thing would function differently. Capital's only voluntarily going to be allocated today where there's strong property rights and little interference or scrutiny.
>>7721558
It is only circular reasoning when you try to "multiply entities beyond reason".
> Wealthy nations are more liberal today because the wealthy and vested interests benefit from liberalism and the international system is structured in such a way that there's no realistic alternative
This has to be shown not asserted
For causation you at least need correlation and temporal coupling.
You have shown neither for the alternatives of capitalism only handwaving and hypothesising. Communism/socalism once spread half the world and didn't manifest itself with wealth.
You already know that there's a correlation between wealth and market freedom. There's also temporal coupling:
freeing the markets in Inda and China pulled millions of people out of poverty... on a daily basis. The same was observed in former soviet block countries.
If you want to belive that capitalism isn't effective you are free to do so - but it's only belief.
>>7721653
A non-market based form of allocation based on some form of democratic planning for a core sector of socially decided expected goods (housing, food, etc) could easily be managed with modern technology. Markets aren't really that effective for how much they cost to operate (all the useless white collar paper pushers, CEOs, the necessary unemployment to keep inflation low, etc, etc) for all the overhead costs... stock market trading will probably be fully automated in the not so distant future naturally anyway.
>freeing the markets in Inda and China pulled millions of people out of poverty... on a daily basis. The same was observed in former soviet block countries.
Because a bunch of foreigners shipped in a bunch of machinery for an expected return, free trade is good and isolationism isn't. You can have an open economy but still maintain some level of management along side it.
>>7718952
>capitalism
>personal liberty
>capitalism
>small government
>capitalism
>immorality of progressive taxes
You literally see things which are the final result of an enormous chain of complex events and it doesn't even cross your mind that they didn't just pop into reality because the guy who's holding it is a hard worker.
Capitalism is a great and just system, if nothing existed. Hence it seems great to people who can't consider ideas without completely emptying their mind of any concept of context to free up processing power.
>>7719421
Define wealth.
>>7721104
Fuck that, I want to get paid.
>>7721935
> could easily be managed with modern technology.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
-- sincerly a programmer/analyst
>>7719517
Free market fundamentalists tend not to look at the numbers too closely (or sometimes at all)
Countries who implemented all their policies? Latin American states, all growing sideways if at all
Countries who flaunted them? Asian Tigers and Singapore
>>7722266
Singapore. One of the most free markets in the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom
Do you even think or are there just sights, sounds and the occasional pain in your brain?
>>7722360
And yet there's a massive amount of state intervention and involvement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore
Don't take anything from "The Heritage Foundation" or any other right wing think tank that seriously
>>7722266
The implication that Singapur is some leftist utopia is laughable. There's a lot of state intervention in the form of forced savings not in the redistribution of wealth:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/03/31/singapore-a-fascinating-alternative-to-the-welfare-state
>>7722419
>forced savings not in the redistribution of wealth
...but isn't that just the state mandating directing income towards meeting targeted goals? You'd get more bang for your buck if you just pooled the funds together and bargained collectively
Also Forbes is telling me to turn off ad-block ayyyy
>>7722475
It's certainly not a libertarian principle but the wealth is not distributed from party A to party B. Instead party A is basically forced to by the goverment to "insure" himself against certain things (homelessness, sickness etc).
There's no major redistributions of wealth nor is the market unfree.
>>7722499
But more individuals saving just raises the overhead costs of doing business and the debt burden for corporations. Businesses have to take on debt and pay back interest on it instead of just reinvesting back that slice out of their profits into their business. You could remove the debt burden by just spending it instead of "investing" looking for a return.
>>7718952
Read anything by Hayek, if you haven't already.
>>7718983
I think Marx and Engels is a pretty cool guy. Eh defeats capitalisms and doesn't afraid of anything.
>>7718952
The Book of Life, the chapter where you get a job.
>>7719411
Yeah, nah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism#cite_note-Karl_Marx_on_Equality-22
If you believe that society is objective, then even if you're as individualistic as you try to be, you still benefit/harm society in a dialectical sense.
>>7720903
I just took a glance to the book. In a way, it has its point. When the semblance and fiction of society is torn apart, what comes next is primordial/violent natural condition of the human animal. Nazi does know it, though, since they view that war purifies the weak, or something like that. Is it like Hobbes' view? Except now the Sovereign does not impose itself to the Law from the state of exception, but is part of the Law.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
>>7722266
Spics have lower IQs than East Asians. They're naturally more stupid.
>>7722995
Road to Serfdom by Hayek
Also just look at America in the 19th century, how we were able to race past and out-innovate all other countries in the world with a heterogeneous population.
>>7723014
he shares the same body type as mine
healing body builder hidden under beer guy and tits. i appreciate him more and more every time
>people still believe in collectivism
>the year 2016 of our lord
>>7723028
shut the fuck up I look nothing like you
capital is a force not a system tbqh
you can talk about how much you hate it and post pictures of your favourite jew but there's nothing you can do to actually stop it
future of capitalism by lefebvre
>>7718952
>Which book makes the best factual arguments for capitalism?
Any history book focusing on 20th century socialism / communism, soviet russia, yugoslavia, etc.
the end game for society is a society without currency or human labor in any other than intellectual or scientific fields.
ITT: Randroids and commies get in a pissing contest
