Qx: It could well be printed for self-serving triumphalism also. Has that occurred to you?
It owuldnt make the statistics any less checkable.
G: It is imprecise, it means without the kind of capital (eg land of huge stocks) that would make
it 'easier' to start a business. Some were from low income families, some were from middle
income families and no doubt some were from high income families.
Qx: Then I would not even try to use it as a reference source.
I would however refer to it as a refutation of the insistence that successful people are all welathy to begin with.
Qx: Good. then you can sense that nepotism propelled by greed is the motivating factor and not
any capitalist endeavour that assues responsibility for risk. Hence false capitalism.
Welcome to the mixed economy where being an entreprenuer is to be considered cattle for governemnt and their cronies to feed off.
G: Ahhhh...inherited wealth in the guise of working capital which survives by profits which is
really theft from the workers.
See my discussions woth red Deathy.
Qx: It may answer my final point to an extent but if you take into account the illegal arms trade
(much it from the West) it sure seems like a chaotic market which some pro-capitalists would
call “free trade” if it weren’t for the lethality of the merchandise.
Is 'illegal' always opposed by state, or quietly encouraged?
Qx: Praising Carnegie is hardly a worthy chore and I don’t see why you attempt to defend
Carnegie and Rockefeller.
Evidently, if you dont see why then how can I hope to explain? Do you consider that without such people America would have more steel and oil today? Would have more of the jobs and wealth created by such?
: Of course the business press will lather these two with praises galore but there is another side to the story.
The mass media tarnishes them (with deliberate imprecision) as robber barons, while exalting Oprah and Hillary as great. Its agenda is largely in line with government and status quo.
We all 'know' about cowardly carnegie and the steel union. We never learn about one of the firms partners 'captain jones' who fought for workers conditions on many occasions - it upsets the stereotype, 'we' must never question unions, they are 'always right' by the simple fact of being poorer and more in number, we must never consider that had carnegie et al not bothered then the works wuold not have existed, steel would not have been plentiful and cheap. A much more illustrative solution, had Carnegie wanted to prove a point, would be to abandon the works and take his management team with him, and then shown the results - looking back one can always fantasize that it would have worked even better though.
Qx: No it’s not. J.J. Hill was just as anti-union as any of them and yes, Gee, he did
hobnob with other robber barons. He was Canadian in the first place and lived off that
parasitic colonial society before going into the USA with his cultivated image. Typical
Ontario boy wi5th upper crust pretensions. Don’t fall for the image.
This 'criticism' of JJ Hill is nothing but a dislike of his background and his person. Whatever 'hibnobbing', ie socialising he did with people who had legislative strings none were pulled in his favor, unless you consider *not* getting in his way as a favor.
Qx: The corrupt don’t tarnish the good Gee. The corrupt corrupted themselves and
nobody else. That’s an essential aspect of individual responsibility. As far as AOL/
Netscape “running to mommy ” over the monopolistic behavior of Microsoft I would say
that comment is rather reductionist and omits the behavior and manipulative planning of
Bill Gates. He isn’t sombody to admire and if you look at his history with Steve Jobs you
may not admire him either. If you really wnat to break away from Microsoft then try
many people are trying Linux, its the only valid mechanism against microsoft - to select otehr products. The existence of Linux shows how 'manipulayive' planning is not some allmighty bar to competition. Only the government with the force of law can do that.
Qx: How does it downplay “the vital destabilising influence of Norway”? By omission?
It’s interesting how David Freidman tries to come off with an
example that gets laughed at whole-heartedly by most anthropologists I have talked to.
That means something - anthroplogists laughter is not evidence. It might be nervous laughter of bravado, and protecting their perosnal credibility for all I know.
Especially Scandinavians I have known who have extensive anthropological
backgrounds. Sorry, Gee, there’s no way that medieval Iceland was a capitalistic society
D Friedmans work on the matter is primarily concerned with non-centralised law working, rather thena free trade and defined property rights.
Qx: Whoopsy dazy here Gee! The Cato Institute operates under a corporatist agenda
according to you. Incidently, if you argue that anything cato published is twisted to support their view then you also concede that anything published by 'the other side' is likewise lacking in credibility and accuracy.