I think what he's saying is competition without government intervention is a good thing. Can't say I disagree.

I'm saving this quote. For when Dana next explains that Communism as practised in the 20th century is not soemthing she would advocate. It's usually decreied as a twisty excuse, so I'm pleased to see there are examples at the other end of the spectrum.

BTW I still remember that Cheers episode.
I bet this weekend if I start singing "Albania, Albania" my brother will join in...
I honestly thought that was just a family thing!

"My mental model of X is that it's perfect! Therefore, if it's not working, the only possible conclusion is that it is NOT X."

This appears to be a basic logic error that appears in all humans.

By all means save it, but it does nothing to bolster that argument. Communism started off with all of the altruistic intents of Marx but eventually it led to totalitarianism because it must. It always does because it violates human nature.

All I'm saying is merely calling something "capitalism" doesn't make it so. Capitalism didn't fail in Albania. Albania failed to implement real capitalism.

This has nothing to do with my "mental model" of capitalism. It has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist and everything else does and because capitalism is purely voluntary. I'm not saying capitalism is perfect....just closer to perfection than any other economic system ever devised.

Radar says, "You must adhere to my doctrine! You must see things my way! I am correct! You are wrong! Hear me now!" :rolleyes:

Which doesn't stop him from being right about capitalism. It's based on mutually beneficial transaction.

As in any system, somebody can try cheating -- fraudulent transactions. The cheater might even manage to get away with it for quite some time if he hides cleverly and well. The more rigid the system, the better gaming it seems to pay off, if Communist Party apparatchiks are any example.

If it's not perfect it must not be X.

50% inflation. Pyramid schemes. 1500 deaths. Bouncing currency values. Widespread destruction of property.

Mutually beneficial transaction. Very good, I read Friedman too. But in the case of a pyramid scheme, who mutually benefits?

Which is why a pyramid scheme is outside the pale of proper capitalistic practice, just like any swindle.

The very problem with a pyramid scheme: everybody in it believes it's chock-full of mutually beneficial transactions.

Enough people with a broken belief can break a market economy.

So one answer is that we outlaw pyramid schemes... but that fails Radar's test 4 posts up: "it has to do with the reality that capitalism doesn't require force to exist" -- well no, Capitalism requires a system of policing, and courts, and legislation, to determine what is swindle and protect against it.

To this formerly hard-ass libertarian, this realization was a sharp slap in the face.

It also requires good government for its framework of capitalist infrastructure: establishing currency, putting in place a system of deeds of ownership, etc.

A market economy requiring government. Whoda thunk it.

Yeah, some of us libertarians acknowledge a place for what I call society's coercive functions -- intended overall to keep a society in good order, and in considerable measure independent of a society's intensity, or amount, of governance.

The coercive functions may often be distinguished by this point: that nobody's found a way to make money or wealth from them, yet they are agreed upon as necessities in support of making money and wealth.

Well stated and well summerized.

Well, summarized anyway. The other way it's like heavier-grade oil in the crankcase and a new air filter...

Woo Hoo! They finally came out with the decision. The Supreme Court finally did something right!

"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
- George Carlin
Guess he's finding out whether he was right or wrong.

Crazy that it was 5-4, but a good decision just the same.
:us: