Capitalism

One of the great ironies of anti-capitalist resentment is that the envy and contempt results from a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between liberty and statism.

The concept of “planned obsolescence” makes no economic sense and is often an excuse for governments to harass and shake down innovative entrepreneurs. Much of so-called planned obsolescence is really entrepreneurship at work improving products for users and consumers.

By honoring Mokyr, Aghion, and Howitt, the Nobel Committee has recognized that the future of growth depends on innovation, and that innovation begins with an idea. Ideas drive progress, and progress defines civilization.

The famous phrase was uttered by William H. Vanderbilt, which was interpreted to mean that the capitalists didn’t care for their customers. Vanderbilt knew he worked for his stockholders, but in working for them, he had to provide for his railroad’s passengers.

One of the objections against anarcho-capitalism is that without government supervision, businesses will form cartels. However, free markets have their own ways of undermining these arrangements.

To simply understand the differences between socialism, communism, and fascism—contrasted against the free market—imagine owning two cows, then explore what the state would do.

Privatization is often explained as something the state permits. However, true privatization rejects state coercion in all things, including money.

Anarcho-capitalism isn’t a dystopian version of every man for himself. It is rooted in community, private institutions, and families.

David Gordon reviews Quinn Slobodian's Crack-Up Capitalism. Slobodian’s obsession with the evils of competition, which he considers a race to the bottom, is so great that it leads him to dismiss commonplace observations that everyone knows to be true.

Chris Calton reviews Michael Sonenscher's Capitalism: The Story Behind the Word. The book meanders through abstract associations to claim that the division of labor is “worse” than capitalism without providing context or engaging with real historical developments.