The libertarian disconnect!!

What empirical data? Facts are facts, the Austrians are consistently correct.

There is an unlimited amount of wealth, if there is a disparity it's likely the result of government. Capitalism is the only economic system where anybody can prosper, government is the only barrier to a free market.

Government controls the means of production through regulation, they have all the power. If a corporation/individual finds a "loophole" the state will generate more regulation to capitalize on their inefficiency.

Overpopulation in places like India and China have resulted in economic growth and a higher standard of living for their citizens.

 

Greed is identified as a "problem" but it exists in all economic systems but it is actually less in a laisse faire capitalist system than it is in a socialist system as the wealth is far more concentrated at the top under socialism.

Laisse faire capitalism is based upon voluntary transactions in a free market. Protections against coercion and unfare business practices, such as price fixing and monopolies, are inherent in laisse faire capitalism. Government interventionism is always related to selective government favoritism and privilege which adversely impacts those entities that are not being provided favorite status and treatment.

Of course an example is in order. The US government bailed out GM and Chrysler and that resulted in disadvantages for Ford which received no government funding. Ford stockholders lost potential revenue because of the bailouts as Ford could have emerged as the sole US based auto maker had GM and Chrysler not been bailed out by the government. Ford lost potential market share because of government interventionism. Yes, many will point to the jobs that were "saved" at GM and Chrysler but how many potential jobs were lost at Ford because it's not producing more cars based upon increased market share? The government "rewarded" bad management at GM and Chrysler to the detriment of good management at Ford.

That would not have happened under laisse faire capitalism. A corporation with good management would survive while a corporation with bad management would not. Certainly good management wouldn't have been treated unfairly by the government which was a result of the auto bailouts.

 

Ancient Greece and Rome had massive numbers of slaves - so huge portions of the population were not represented. No wonder they were doomed to fail.

And the Weimar Republic did not have direct democracy (in that an individual citizen could directly vote on every piece of legislation brought before the government). They had representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution#Section_5:_Reich_Legislation

Also, I am not overly familiar with the French Revolution in detail, but I do not recall reading/hearing that every single citizen had a direct vote on every single piece of legislation presented in their government.

To my knowledge, no major/medium (minor?) country has ever had direct voting by it's citizens on every piece of legislation presented in it's government.

 

Actually this makes a lot of sense. The only objection I'd have is that under a true free market, a lot of old people/veterans etc. as well as people who can't afford things like trade school/college might be severely disadvantaged or worse.

 

The only possible two objections I'd have to this, is one simple ultimate fact:

It requires initial start-up capital to create wealth. Whether you're starting a business or paying for training (trade school, college etc.). IMHO, it gives an unfair advantage to people who already happen to own a lot of capital. And,

Some people such as the elderly, mentally/physically handicapped etc. might be severely disadvantaged or worse.

This is pure lunacy. Their economic growth is due to taking jobs that use to be here. Period.

 

It takes minimal start-up capital to create wealth, none really. The people who make that claim start at the middle of the process, not the beginning.

People who really want to start a business and are willing to put forth the work needed to create one start early. They work for years, often a decade or more saving money and learning the skills they'll need to successfully manage the business.

Even then, they usually start very small with a bare minimum of equipment and labor. As the business grows and is profitable they gradually expand, the most successful ones become huge corporations like we see today.

Very few businesses are started when someone spontaneously decides they want their own business and dumps several hundred thousand to buy land, equipment and hire workers. That is just a recipe for bankruptcy.

 

It requires more and more initial startup capital as the world becomes more and more automated.

 

You don't have to start big. People seem to believe the only way to start a business is with a huge factory and a million workers.

Most big businesses of today started as small, family operations that gradually grew. Most of those family businesses were started by someone who built the start up capital by working for other people and saving what they earned.

Businesses don't start at the point where someone actually gets a business license and buys equipment. They start decades earlier when that same person starts saving money and learning the skills needed for the business.

 

yeah but if entry-level jobs are so scarce that you can't get one within 2 months..it takes food and shelter to live...2 months without food or shelter..

It takes wealth to create wealth just like it takes heat (in the form of a spark or lighter) to create heat (if this spark/lighter is to start something on fire).

 

That is funny, because consistently correct implies they are almost always correct. And I can think of few instances under which they are correct. They make a broad prediction, and then shoehorn any new evidence into that model. Usually that shoehorning is an incredibly difficult process, but the Austrian sycophants lap the nonsense up as if they have said something profound!!

 

Actually it costs more because of inflation and government regulations.

As an example Carl Karcher, that created the chain of Carl's Jr restaurants, started out with a capital investment of slightly more than $300 to purchase a hot dog cart. Today it would cost up to $4000 to purchase a new hot dog cart and additional expenses related to government regulations that didn't exist when he started out.

Of note even medium size corporations can be created at very little cost if the founder(s) of the corporation do their homework and create a high quality business plan that will generate investments in the free market.

 

Consider this: which is more difficult to create yourself, a big huge factory of today, or a small bread shop of many years ago?

Siliconmagician's desires have been coming to reality for decades.

 

I would say it's about the same amount of effort for both although a person starting a large manufacturing factory would generally require more business knowledge. The amount of "work" involved is about the same as either individual would typically be looking at 12-18 hour days in getting the enterprise started.

As for capital investment the bakery would probably cost the individual more because it would be privately financed while a large manufacturing enterprise would probably be started as a corporation with an IPO to capitalize the enterprise.

 

I'm talking about someone creating a factory themselves personally vs. creating a simple bread shop personally. It'd require massive amounts of technical knowledge and metals and materials and time and risk for a single person to create a factory. It'd be about impossible.

On the other hand you could just take some wood and nails and a hammer and make a (*)(*)(*)(*) bread shop back in the day.

Not if it were a real free market. Then only the select few individuals out of billions could afford factories and have a total monopoly over large scale production. Though I don't know how it'd compare to government corporations.

Or, there simply would be no large scale production. Not that this would be necessarily a bad thing IMO.