I just finished a book called Freakonomics. It is written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, two guys that look at things slightly differently than others do. They make some startling claims, Levitt is an economist that uses his skills to attempt to answer questions he proposes to himself, questions an ordinary economist wouldn't ask. For instance, he proposes the notion that the decrease in crime that statistics seem to show can be credited to abortion being legalized. He wrote a paper about it that caused a stir a few years ago.

The book is very interesting, but it mentions another work by Adam Smith called The Theory of Moral Sentiments. I looked it up, and this is the guy that also wrote The Wealth of Nations. These are older books, first published in the 1700s, so they are all over the internet. They look very interesting, simply because after reading the first few paragraphs of each I see that people still talk about these ideas.

President Bush has touted several times over that by increasing the commerce this country is involved in brings benefits to everyone, even the poor. This to me was just common sense, and is nicely illustrated by the number of computers in this country, and how this number has changed since PCs became popular. It is a good example because it is happening so fast. People that can afford computers are always eager to get their hands on the lastest. I know I am, though I can't afford the latest and greatest. Still, when I upgrade I don't just throw the old ones away, they get reused, or the parts do, and most everything is given away. So, people that can afford the latest and greatest benefit, because they get the latest and greatest, and people that can't benefit because they get the hand-me-downs.

This is how capitalism benefits everyone, or that's the theory anyway. One only has to read a few paragraphs of Wealth to see where these ideas come from.

Among civilised and thriving nations, on the contrary, though a great number of people do not labour at all, many of whom consume the produce of ten times, frequently of a hundred times more labour than the greater part of those who work; yet the produce of the whole labour of the society is so great that all are often abundantly supplied, and a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order, if he is frugal and industrious, may enjoy a greater share of the necessaries and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire.

This is the justification for spreading 'democracy', though when they say democracy they really mean imperialism, which one could look at as simply being capitalism forced on others for the benefit of the enforcers. People can posture all they like, touting the benefits of a 'free economy', but history has shown that when a 'free economy' is brought to a nation, the labor and resources are drained disproportionatly from that nation. It happens when we 'outsource' work. It happened in Iran, where it is obvious now that British corporations practically stole the petroleum resources of that country by paying the rulers large sums for the 'rights' to their oil.

The reasoning is that the companies in a free economy need an incentive to do their work. The profits they demand is a small price to bring the necessaries and conveniences to the masses, and the masses should be grateful that said companies glut the population of their resources, because without them they wouldn't have that nice jalopy in the yard, or the second hand TV they are glued to every night.

Do I think we should practice communism or socialism? Of course not, but don't both socialism and capitalism as we practice it today amount to the same thing? With socialism, everyone is supposed to have an equal share of the fruits of the collective labor. The idea is that with a collective effort, leisure time is maximized for everyone. The problem with this is, everyone would like it to be someone else that does all the labor. Don't we have the same situation in this country? Are there not a very few that benefit immensely from the fruits of the labor of the general population? The bulk of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a very small percentage of the population. The American dream is to accumulate enough wealth to be able to languish in leisure time with very little effort. Some complain about the distribution of wealth, but dream of winning the lottery so they can tell their boss to pack sand.

It seems to me that neither system will work as it is supposed to until the underlying ideas that motivate them are changed. Those motivations are amassing more wealth and consuming more goods than what is necessary for survival, and the ability to do this while spending all of one's time in leisure activities.

Ok, I ended up saying way more than I intended. And I didn't use vulgar language once!! What the fuck is wrong with me?!?!