Who is Bastiat?

By Thomas DiLorenzo, from mises.org:

Claude Frédéric Bastiat was a French economist and writer who championed private property, free markets, and opposed all government intervention. The main underlying theme of Bastiat’s writings was that the free market was inherently a source of “economic harmony” among individuals, as long as government was restricted to the function of protecting the lives, liberties, and property of citizens from theft or aggression. To Bastiat, governmental coercion was only legitimate if it served “to guarantee security of person, liberty, and property rights, to cause justice to reign
over all.”

Bastiat emphasized the plan-coordination function of the free market, a major theme of the Austrian School, because his thinking was influenced by some of Adam Smith’s writings and by the great French freemarket economists Jean-Baptiste Say, François Quesnay, Destutt de Tracy, Charles Comte, Richard Cantillon (who was born in Ireland
and emigrated to France), and Anne Robert Jacques Turgot.

These French economists were among the precursors to the modern Austrian School, having first developed such concepts as the market as a dynamic, rivalrous process, the freemarket evolution of money, subjective value theory, the laws of diminishing marginal utility and marginal returns, the marginal productivity theory of resource pricing, and the futility of price controls in particular and of the government’s economic interventionism in general.

Bastiat was orphaned at age ten, and was raised and educated by his paternal grandparents. He left school at age 17 to work in the family exporting business in the town of Bayonne, where he learned firsthand the evils of protectionism by observing all the closed-down warehouses, the declining population, and the increased poverty and unemployment caused by trade restrictions.

When his grandfather died, Bastiat, at age 25, inherited the family estate in Mugron, which enabled him to live the life of a gentleman farmer and scholar for the next 20 years. Bastiat hired people to operate the family farm so he could concentrate
on his intellectual pursuits. He was a voracious reader, and he discussed and debated with friends virtually all forms of literature.

Bastiat’s first published article appeared in April of 1834. It was a response to a petition by the merchants of Bordeaux, Le Havre, and Lyons to eliminate tariffs on agricultural products but to maintain them on manufacturing goods. Bastiat
praised the merchants for their position on agricultural products, but excoriated them for their hypocrisy in wanting protectionism for themselves. “You demand privilege for a few,” he wrote, whereas “I demand liberty for all.” He then explained why all tariffs should be abolished completely.

Bastiat continued to hone his arguments in favor of economic
freedom by writing a second essay in opposition to all
domestic taxes on wine, entitled “The Tax and the Vine,” and
a third essay opposing all taxes on land and all forms of trade restrictions. Then, in the summer of 1844, Bastiat sent an unsolicited
manuscript on the effects of French and English tariffs
to the most prestigious economics journal in France, the Journal
des Economistes. The editors published the article, “The
Influence of English and French Tariffs,” in the October 1844
issue, and it unquestionably became the most persuasive
argument for free trade in particular, and for economic freedom
in general, that had ever appeared in France, if not all of
Europe.

After 20 years of intense intellectual preparation, articles
began to pour out of Bastiat, and soon took the form of his first book, Economic Sophisms, which to this day is still arguably the best literary defense of free trade available. He quickly followed with his second book, Economic Harmonies, and his articles were reprinted in newspapers and magazines all over France.

In 1846, he was elected a corresponding member of the
French Academy of Science, and his work was immediately
translated into English, Spanish, Italian, and German. Freetrade
associations soon began to sprout up in Belgium, Italy,
Sweden, Prussia, and Germany, and were all based on Bastiat’s
French Free Trade Association.

While Bastiat was shaping economic opinion in France,
Karl Marx was writing Das Kapital, and the socialist notion of
“class conflict” that the economic gains of capitalists necessarily
came at the expense of workers was gaining in popularity.
Bastiat’s Economic Harmonies explained why the opposite is
true that the interests of mankind are essentially harmonious
if they can be cultivated in a free society where government
confines its responsibilities to suppressing thieves, murderers, and special-interest groups who seek to use the state as a
means of plundering their fellow citizens.

The way in which Bastiat described economics as an intellectual
endeavor is virtually identical to what modern Austrians
label the science of human action, or praxaeology. While
establishing the inherent harmony of voluntary trade, Bastiat
also explained how governmental resource allocation is necessarily
antagonistic and destructive of the free market’s natural
harmony.

Bastiat also saw through the phony “philanthropy” of the
socialists who constantly proposed helping this or that person
or group by plundering the wealth of other innocent members
of society through the aegis of the state. All such schemes are
based on “legal plunder, organized injustice.”

Bastiat’s writing constitutes an intellectual bridge
between the ideas of the pre-Austrian economists and the
Austrian tradition of Carl Menger and his students. He was
also a model of scholarship for those Austrians who believed
that general economic education, especially the kind of economic
education that shatters the myriad myths and superstitions
created by the state and its intellectual apologists, is an
essential function (if not duty) of the economist.

To this day, Bastiat’s work is not appreciated as much as it
should be because, as Murray Rothbard explained, today’s
intemperate critics of economic freedom “find it difficult to
believe that anyone who is ardently and consistently in favor
of laissez-faire could possibly be an important scholar and economic
theorist.”

Read More...

Summary only...

The wonder of socialized medicine

Good links today from Norman Singleton on the wonders of British health care. Isn't socialism wonderful?

Link

Read More...

Summary only...

The barbarians are coming!

"Barbarians at the Gate." What a great title to this speech, which talks about the psychology of the anti-capitalist mentality.

Read More...

Summary only...

Anti-Market Fallacies pt. 2

In my second installment of economic sophisms, I want to tackle the claim that free market capitalism is only for the rich because it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. The answer to free market capitalism, they say, is that we need some degree of socialism in order to protect the poor from the exploitative rich.

Many people, even in the United States, believe this to be true. That's why they are Republican's, and that's especially why they are Democrats.

However, the great irony of this sophism is that it is actually impossible for the poor to become poorer under free market capitalism(FMC), and the only way for the poor to continually become poorer is through socialism.

The reason is that under FMC, the rich cannot get wealthier unless they exchange their wealth with other people. For example, Bill Gates is a very rich man. How did he get rich? He got rich by inventing and then starting a company that sold computers. Bill Gates had to sell his goods in the market economy, which means that he had to exchange his computers voluntarily with another individual who voluntarily gave up money (or something else) in return for the computer.

Now, let's look at the nature of this exchange between Bill Gates and the individual. Let's imagine that Bill Gates receives $1500 for the computer. This means Bill Gates has increased his stock of money by $1500 and decreased his stock of computers by 1. The individual on the other hand has decreased his stock of money by $1500 and increased his stock of computers by 1. To reiterate, because he must work within the market economy, the only way Bill Gates is able to increase his stock of money is to offer something in return.

Because Bill Gates makes this transaction millions of times, his stock of money greatly increases. At this point, the anti-capitalist may make the claim that because Bill Gates has, say, $45,000,000,000, this means everyone else has $45,000,000,000 less and are thus poorer. This is how rich people get rich, and as we can see, this is why the poor get poorer and the rich get richer.

But the anti-capitalist has made a grave mistake. (S)He has confused money with wealth. If money is wealth, imagine this scenario: tomorrow morning you wake up and everyone in the world has twice as money in their pockets than they had the day before. Ask yourself this question, "is everyone now twice as wealthy?"

The answer is: of course not. If everyone in the world all of a sudden had twice as much money, all that would happen is the price of everything would double and no one would be better off. Again, if money was wealth then we could just print up enough money so that everyone in the the world had $1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and poverty would be eliminated, everyone would drive fancy cars and live in mansions. Of course that's silly though, because money is not wealth it just facilitates exchange.

Real wealth is tangible, useful things. Anything from spoons, carpet, machinery, buildings, cars, food, ect. Real wealth is the stuff that we use money to buy, not the money itself.

Go back to the exchange with Bill Gates. Given what has been outlined above, is the individual poorer after decreasing his supply of money by $1500? No. In fact, the individual has just increased his wealth by increasing his supply of computers by 1. Bill Gates has helped the individual become richer, and the individual has helped Bill Gates get richer. Bill Gates is now richer because he can use the money he received from the individual to buy things he values more than the computer he gave up. The individual is richer because by buying the computer he shows that he values the computer more than the alternative things he could of bought with the $1500. Under FMC, both parties benefit and increase each others wealth simultaneously and mutually.

So, as can be seen by the above analysis, it is impossible for the rich to increase their wealth under capitalism without exchanging something and increasing the wealth of someone else in return. Therefore, it is not possible for the poor to get poorer if the rich want to get richer.

Over time, if the rich want to get richer they need to compete with one another in order to get more people to exchange with them instead of someone else. These competitive forces cause prices to fall and quality of goods to go up. AS prices fall, and goods become cheaper to manufacture, this allows the poor to begin affording goods that could not before, further increasing their wealth.


This fact can be seen in that many poor people today have luxuries that kings of only a few hundred never dreamed of. Anyone can observe that the wealth of the poor as increased many ways. For example, when cars first came out only the rich had them, but now the poor have better cars than the rich did. Same with TV, computers, and cell phones all since the 20th century. Obviously the poor have become richer over time because they have increased the number and quality of goods that they have. We can further note that the poor have increased the number of people who have electricity and indoor plumbing, which almost all poor people do today (in the Industrialized nations), but which the rich did not possess at all, all that long ago.

Question: What if the rich ignored the poor?

If the rich ignored the poor so that they did not have to exchange with them and thus increase the wealth of the poor, it would not be possible for the rich to be rich. If the rich only exchanged with the rich it would not be possible for them to increase their wealth because the poor must perform labor to make goods or do services (wealth). Without the poor, the rich cannot be rich because the more people you exchange with the richer you are. Ignoring the vast majority of the population would relegate you to a life of poverty.

Also, keep in mind that "rich" and "poor" are relative terms. If we compared the poor of today with the rich of 1000 years ago, the poor of today would be wealthier than the rich 1000 years ago in many ways.

What about socialism?

Socialism is the only way in which the rich can become richer while the poor become poorer. Under 100% socialism, the distribution of goods is not based upon voluntary exchange but by the dictates of a central governing authority. The socialist leaders under this system can use their monopoly on the use of violent force (the police) to distribute goods to themselves and away from everyone else since they do not rely on exchange. In the end, only a government uprising can stop them.

Read More...

Summary only...

Horatio Bunce's Lesson to Davy Crockett

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Read More...

Summary only...

Equal Education

One of the reasons that proponents of public education believe that there should even be a such as thing, is that all private schooling would lead to a situation in which children from rich families have better schooling than children from poor families, and this is unfair and immoral.

The first problem with this contention is that the U.S. has universal public (socialized) schooling already but the public schools in Beverley Hills are obviously better than the public schools in Harlem. So, public schooling has failed to lead to equal schooling in disparate communities.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that we are able to fix the schooling system such that a public school in Harlem and Compton is equal to a public school in Greenwich and Beverley Hills. This new schooling system will still fail to meet the objective of rich children not having better schooling than poor children because what's to stop the rich parents from sending their children to private schools that are better than public schools?

Well, the only thing that could stop them would be making private schools illegal. Now that we have made private schools illegal we are in a position to see the violent and jealous nature of public school advocates (this applies equally to the advocacy of socialized anything).

Making private schools illegal means that anyone who breaks this law will be violently punished. For example, if a parent gives money to a teacher not employed by the public school system, police must issue some sort of punishment. Either a fine or imprisonment. If a fine, and the parent refuses to pay, then the police must violently extract the fine. If imprisonment, then the police must violently force the parent inside a jail cell. If the parent willfully gives up the fine or goes to jail, it is only because of the implied threat of violence that they do so. If the parent believed or knew that the police actions were not ultimately backed up by violence then they would never comply with police orders.

In essence, the public school advocate is sending agents on their behalf to violently force compliance from the parent. The parent has harmed no one, but was merely using their own money however they wanted in a peaceful and voluntary manner between them and the private teacher. The public school advocate on the other hand jumps in between this peaceful transaction and violently beats them into submission.

Read More...

Summary only...

Anti-market fallacies pt. 1

People unfamiliar with economics often make simple fallacies that skew their reasoning on such issues, and which often lead to odd ethical implications that they are unaware of. Let's take a look at one of those fallacies.

Claim: Big corporations such as Wal-Mart and Home Depot put small businesses out of business, and this is immoral.

Reality: Only consumers can put small businesses out of business. They do so by freely choosing to spend their money at Home Depot or Wal-Mart instead of at the small business. When a large corporation moves into town, no is forcing you to shop there, so if the residents of a town do not like the fact that the big bad corporation is trying put the small business out of commission, then it is merely a simple matter of the community refusing to spend their money at the corporation that will save the small business.

The fact that people freely chose to shop at the corporations shows that the corporation offers goods and services that are more highly valued than the ones offered by the small business. The corporation probably has a larger selection and cheaper prices.

If the selection is larger, than the lives of the residents are benefited by having more options at their disposal to improve their lives. If the prices are cheaper than the residents can receive the same or complementary goods and have more money left over to spend on other things which again improves their lives. When this extra money is spent on the next most valued goods/services of the consumers it increases the demand in those areas which increases the need for jobs, making up for the loss in jobs from consumers no longer shopping at the small businesses. All jobs lost by the shifting preferences of consumers will be reassimilated.

Ethics: The claim that it is immoral for the big-corporations to put small-business out of commission cannot be true because as I have just shown it is actually the consumers that put the small business out of business. So, does the anti-capitalist mean to say that it is immoral of consumers to shop at large corporations? If so, they must believe that people do not have a right to spend their money where they please, they only have the right to spend their own money where the anti-capitalist wants them to spend it. Are the anti-capitalists our mommies and daddies?

But the anti-capitalist is going to say, "but those poor people in the small business won't have jobs. That's just wrong!" The anti-capitalist is making the mistake that all bad econimists make: looking only at what is seen, and not what is unseen.

If the corporation is offering more selection, but the anti-capitalist gets their way and prohibits the corporation from setting up their business, then the workers who make the products that the small-business doesn't carry will be out of work. If the corporation is offering lower prices, then they are destroying jobs that would of been created by spending the extra money in other avenues. Because the anti-capitalist has only looked at what is seen, they have in fact destroyed more jobs than are lost with the small-business closing up!

Read More...

Summary only...