[QUOTE=Thing Fish]
Although capitalist markets have proven to be extremely efficient producers of wealth, the history of capitalism demonstrates that its natural tendency is to concentrate more and more of the wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and the chance that a person not born into an elite family can rise into that strata by his or her own merits becomes less and less. Another flaw of capitalism that is becoming more urgently relevant in our time is that there is no economic incentive for any producer to take the environmental damage its production does into account; this is known as “the tragedy of the commons”.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a cite demonstrating this? Should be easy enough to demonstrate, and it’s one of the basic tenets of Communist theory that wealth will so concentrate. My own view is there are more millionaires today than at any time in history, and that the number of people world wide moving from extreme poverty up the scale grows every year, but if you have a cite showing the opposite I’d love to see it.
Your cite is to an Amazon book I have to order, read and then interpret in light of what I’m asking for?? Even in the description it says this:
Which seems to indicate that the question I was asking isn’t really answered here definitively, even if I accept that Thomas Piketty is THE definitive expert on this and his book is absolute gospel, unquestioned by everyone who is anyone wrt knowledge of this subject.
Capitalist philosophy, however, would look very unfavorably on nepotism.
In the philosophical underpinnings, the market tries to find the best-suited candidate for every role, while we - as individuals - try to find the role that appeals to us most, and as the result of compromise, end up with a satisfied work force producing what society deems necessary. Any attempt to subvert that is harmful to society.
Nepotism is a trait of humans, not Capitalism. And many (possibly the majority of) wealthy people do not give their children any role in their business that wasn’t earned. Though certainly, many do. But in either case, Capitalism would always approve of public education and any mechanism that helped to make the market more efficient and disapprove of any which did the opposite. It does not hold the wealthy any higher than the poor.
It’s not a model. It’s existing phenomena. If you’re going to study how capitalism works, you have to include illegal capitalism.
It may be far from an exchange between equals but most exchanges in both capitalism and the free market are not between equals.
So I stand by my point; a free market is not an automatic product of a capitalism system. In fact, most powerful capitalists would work to eliminate free market competition as much as possible.
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by of “means of production”.
Roads produce things (transportation, commerce) but are for the most part not privately owned.
The air produces things (life) but is not privately owned.
Police, prosecutors and judges produce things (justice, the rule of law), but are not privately owned.
National parks produce things, but are not privately owned.
The Fed produces things (money, for example) but is not privately owned.
Legislatures produce things (laws) but are not privately owned.
Pubic schools produce educated workers, but are not privately owned.
Free markets are not the same as capitalism, as other people have said.
Capitalism depends on government regulations that protect and create things like copyrights, patents, trademarks, and corporations. Capitalism depends on government to restrain and contain free markets so that capitalism can thrive. Without government, anyone could sell “Harry Potter” books, not just the copyright owner. Anyone could sell drugs, not just the patent owner. Anyone could suck oil out of the ground, not just the one who owned the mineral rights. Corporations couldn’t sue each other without courts (and in fact couldn’t exist at all).
“Private ownership of the means of production” is a common definition capitalism. But there are no working examples where all the means of production are privately owned. Generally the most essential means of production are owned publically. They’re not entrusted to private hands.