Why do intellectuals hate capitalism?

Eight men have more net worth than 3.5 billion people plus.

That speaks loudly

but i checked wrote:

Mankiw FTW wrote:

My employment contract is a voluntary exchange of services. When I buy things, it is a voluntary exchange of goods. The economy is not zero sum and capitalists do not get rich at the expense of anyone.*

*unless they are crony capitalists who use government power to rig the market. And guess who enables this? It is usually well-meaning but woefully misguided intellectuals who want to increase government power. Think Elizabeth Warren and her love of big bank protectionism...er...I mean financial regulation.

Eight men have more net worth than 3.5 billion people plus.

That speaks loudly

does it really matter if a few people have so much money? If the median person is enjoying unprecedented prosperity (which she is)?

I'm not a big fan of this 'ending inequality is obviously a necessary goal'

capitalism works to reward a few very lucky/smart people. that's part of the deal. The other part of the deal is massive increase in the standard of living of the median person.

An intelligent post on Letsrun! What is happening?

but i checked wrote:

Mankiw FTW wrote:

My employment contract is a voluntary exchange of services. When I buy things, it is a voluntary exchange of goods. The economy is not zero sum and capitalists do not get rich at the expense of anyone.*

*unless they are crony capitalists who use government power to rig the market. And guess who enables this? It is usually well-meaning but woefully misguided intellectuals who want to increase government power. Think Elizabeth Warren and her love of big bank protectionism...er...I mean financial regulation.

Eight men have more net worth than 3.5 billion people plus.

That speaks loudly

Zero sum fallacy. These men created new wealth that didn't exist before.

kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:

Capitalism gives economic power to the people. Intellectuals want to retain economic power for only themselves.

Are you actually this stupid, or just play-acting? Intellectuals created capitalism. Intellectuals oversee and control all the apparatuses that allow capitalism to thrive. Intellectuals, by and large, support and maintain capitalism.

Adam Smith: Intellectual

Friedrick Hayek: Intellectual

Milton Friedman: Intellectual

Does that help?

MurderDubs wrote:

Adam Smith: Intellectual

Friedrick Hayek: Intellectual

Milton Friedman: Intellectual

Does that help?

He meant pseudo-intellectuals, or wannabes or think-the-bes, not *intellactuals*

Hmmmmmm wrote:

MurderDubs wrote:

Adam Smith: Intellectual

Friedrick Hayek: Intellectual

Milton Friedman: Intellectual

Does that help?

He meant pseudo-intellectuals, or wannabes or think-the-bes, not *intellactuals*

This. I was referring to a very specific type of intellectual: the types who think that things would be better if only they controlled everything. They think that they know everything, and could fix almost every problem, when in reality, they are quite clueless, and would create a disaster if they were in charge.

Malemute Kid wrote:

kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:

Capitalism gives economic power to the people.

To the people with capital. Big difference

I was referring to the ability of individuals to make economic decisions in the free marketplace. Individuals have a greater freedom to make economic decisions in a free marketplace than in a regulated and planned economy. Obviously, people with capital have more power than those who do not, but those without capital still have the power to make personal economic choices.

jamin is the only intellectual we need

In the early 20th century, Fabian Socialists deduced that Darwin's theory refuted the Bible, so it must also refute Protestant capitalism, the problem is Darwin's theory actually reaffirmed individualistic capitalistic endeavors. Sadly, Fabian Socialism and Marxism swept the left like the plague on a false premise.

It's simple, "Intellectuals!?" think it's unfair for one person to have more than another.

Bobby1 wrote:

It's simple, "Intellectuals!?" think it's unfair for one person to have more than another.

Socialism/communism takes time but is ultimately successful as in the utopia of Venezuela.

kikKomen Soi sauce wrote:

Hmmmmmm wrote:

He meant pseudo-intellectuals, or wannabes or think-the-bes, not *intellactuals*

This. I was referring to a very specific type of intellectual: the types who think that things would be better if only they controlled everything. They think that they know everything, and could fix almost every problem, when in reality, they are quite clueless, and would create a disaster if they were in charge.

Ok, fair enough: I see where you're coming from. Those *intellectuals* are bunch of ABD baristas: No surprise they hate people who know how to turn around a dollar.

It might matter. The basic arguments in favor of capitalism are that it is morally neutral and that other systems have had worse outcomes historically. But if the concentration of wealth has bad enough side effects, capitalism could fail to win on both arguments.

"Ending inequality" sounds like a straw man. How about we find a way to reduce inequality somewhat?

I don't accept that as an *essential* feature of capitalism. If it turns out to be unavoidable, I might consider that a compelling argument against capitalism.

As a median person in the USA (although *far* below the median on LRC!), I have no worries for myself. It is the people on the lowest rung that I worry about. One of the charts posted above shows they spend 40% of disposable income on food!

Look, Marx wasn't wrong about everything. The profit the capitalist makes is the difference between (a) the value of the work done and (b) the wage paid to the one who did the work. For someone like me who makes more money than I care to spend, I'm fine with that arrangement. What I am not fine with is systematic exploitation of poor people.

Here is how it works: You want the job? I can only pay $x per hour. Not enough you say? All right, step aside. There's another poor job-seeker right behind you. Maybe he is hungry enough to accept my offer.

That's the sort of thing that makes pure capitalism problematic.

Ya Ya Ya wrote:

"Capitalists" think that the free market is great as long as they see themselves getting ahead. But once they get ahead they want the market regulated or the government to give them special aid or protection to keep themselves ahead and to keep others from naturally replacing them through competition. They want to ignore that capitalism is cannibalistic and the free market is supposed to keep turning over. They don't like intellectuals because they understand how the definition of capitalism has become so twisted.

When "capitalists" screw up and their businesses start tanking they want governments to bail them out. To the tune of billions of dollars when you look at the banks these last 9 years. And they carry on paying themselves high salaries with taxpayer's money, not money that they created - they should be on minimum wage under such circumstances. This is far worse than socialists or welfare cheats when you consider the amount money of involved.

agip wrote:

but i checked wrote:

Eight men have more net worth than 3.5 billion people plus.

That speaks loudly

does it really matter if a few people have so much money?

Of course it does.

If the median person is enjoying unprecedented prosperity (which she is)?

Complete nonsense. The vast majority of the world lives in pvoerty

capitalism works to reward a few very lucky/smart people. that's part of the deal.

It rewards a handful of psychopaths at the expense of everyone else.

The other part of the deal is massive increase in the standard of living of the median person.

Complete hogwash.

Hmmmmmm wrote:

MurderDubs wrote:

Adam Smith: Intellectual

Friedrick Hayek: Intellectual

Milton Friedman: Intellectual

Does that help?

He meant pseudo-intellectuals, or wannabes or think-the-bes, not *intellactuals*

True dat

agip wrote:

https://twitter.com/davidlipson/status/853837028101726208

great graphic. anyone else notice, the sectors/industries that are most regulated are the ones where prices rise the most?