Print 108 comment(s) - last by jtemplin.. on Oct 8 at 1:47 PM

An anti-capitalism poster from 1911, published in the Industrial Worker, a socialist-anarchist newspaper
Fire, the wheel, the printing press...and the capitalist economic system.

When listing all the numerous inventions that improve our lives, one of the most important is usually ignored: the capitalist economic system.  With recent market turmoil causing some observers to claim capitalism itself has failed, it's apropos to take a closer look at the technology behind it.

Capitalism is an invention, no different than the transistor or the automobile. Like those others, it's comprised of many smaller inventions: the corporation, the bank, the stock market, commodities, securities, futures, etc. All together, they are a group of technologies invaluable for efficiently converting labor and resources into goods and services. Nothing we've devised has ever worked so well.  Most of our prosperity and standard of living derives from it.

Take Russia. By far the world's largest country and the richest in natural resources, it has a highly educated and hard-working populace. Yet when Putin took over, their GDP was barely larger than the tiny island of Hong Kong's, and despite quintupling in the last few years, it's still a tenth of the US economy. Or consider China which, after allowing a small bit of capitalist endeavor to penetrate its system, transformed into the world's fourth-largest economy nearly overnight.

One of the reasons so many people (including some misguided economists) have trouble accepting capitalism is its apparent simplicity. It just seems impossible that a system so seeming chaotic can outperform something intelligently planned by trained economists. But that assumption is itself incorrect. Where a planned economy is like a single-core processor, capitalism is a neural-net processor with millions of nodes. A socialist economy is run by a few government-appointed individuals. But in a free market, every time you buy or sell a product, you're adding a calculation to the system. Whether you buy a car, rent a movie, or get a haircut, you're contributing to the price and quantity of goods and services. Cut a trip to the mall because gas went up another 5 cents, and you've input data to force down the price. Go anyway and you've voted to raise the price further.

The system appears simple, but in reality it's an enormously complex, self-regulating, highly adaptive mechanism. And like most mechanisms, it works best when no one pours sand in the gears.

There's a strong theoretical basis that any intervention in a market reduces its efficiency. But still governments keep trying to tinker under the hood. Their shade-tree efforts invariably do great damage. Our current fiscal mess is a marvelous case in point. It's been cast as something too difficult for average people to understand, but it’s really very simple.

Consider.  A couple applies for a loan. They make $60K a year, and need to borrow $700K. Their credit history is poor or nonexistent. The house has doubled in value in recent years-- only because all the other homes around it have as well. And the only reason they can afford the payments is because interest rates are so low and they're being offered a balloon mortgage that, if rates climb or their house depreciates will surely bankrupt them.

Does it really take a rocket scientist to know how risky this is? And that a bank with a large portion of its portfolio in such loans is also in peril?

So why did so many banks take such risks for so long? Here's the key to the whole problem: government intervention. In a free market, interest rates will rise in step with rising risks. They didn't -- thanks to the Fed. And government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) such as Fanny Mae, Freddy Mac, and the Federal Home Loan banks kept the music playing. With most of the risk ultimately guaranteed by the federal government, no one really cared.

The bailout will ultimately cost a trillion dollars. It's also left us an industry that's effectively been nationalized, and a precedent that will encourage future industries to take more inappropriate risks. But worst of all, we have people on both sides of the political aisle calling for still more government involvement. Capitalism hasn't failed here-- government intervention has.

What goes up must come down. When a market rises too fast, it must eventually decline. The longer one prevents that, the harder that fall will be. Very simple. It's a shame our politicians can't understand that.

But the technology itself is still sound. And if we just leave the machine alone, very quickly it will start working again.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: now, that was pathetic
By TheDoc9 on 9/22/2008 11:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
Both parties are to blame, along with the Fed and other banks.


- The Gov. encourages banks to give high-risk loans while the Fed keeps interest rates low.

- After some time everything starts to implode, the Fed then creates money out of thin air and loans it to the Gov. at interest in order to 'save' the economy.

- The Gov. and other banks begin purchasing these failed banks and groups, the reasoning is to ensure stability.

Whats really happened here is a consolidation of banking into a more centralized system, directly controlled by fewer people - i.e. the large banks have just gotten larger by buying these failing banks and groups. They've done this with money loaned by the Fed and GIVEN to them by the government.

-The fed has insured that it will make even more money over the next 20 - 30 years, because of payments to interest on these loans paid for by tax payers on money it created with a pin stroke.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By theendofallsongs on 9/22/2008 12:00:03 PM , Rating: 1
Both parties are to blame
Not according to the facts.

Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally...

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end. Back in 2005...for the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee...

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

There's a lot more. Very, VERY interesting reading.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By porkpie on 9/22/2008 3:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Great link. That's a fantastic article. A lot I didn't know about the scandal. As usual, the media tries to hide all the really relevant details from us.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By FITCamaro on 9/22/2008 4:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. But you'll never hear it even discussed on CNN, ABC, NBC, etc.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By Entropy42 on 9/23/2008 4:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
Not that this makes it false, but that article is written by McCain's financial advisor. Its not terribly surprising that he blames Democrats, Obama, and Clinton, and also finishes by claiming that McCain would have saved us if only they had listened.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 9:20:29 AM , Rating: 2
Those things are on the record in history. Not believing it because the guy telling you is a McCain advisor doesn't make it untrue.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By masher2 on 9/24/2008 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 1
FYI, Jim Johnson, who headed Obama's VP search committee, is ex-CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson joined the team at a point he was under fire for preferential loans to and by Fannie Mae.

It's also indisputable that McCain cosponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, a bill that was ultimately blocked by Democratic vote.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By sigilscience on 9/24/2008 11:28:25 AM , Rating: 1
Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

1. Dodd, Christopher D-CT $133,900
2. Kerry, John D-MA $111,000
3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
5. Kanjorski, Paul E D-PA $65,500
All five democrats, and four of them sit on committees which oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in some way (or should have overseen them I should say).

RE: now, that was pathetic
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 5:12:56 PM , Rating: 1
Funny how this isn't on the news huh? If McCain sat in Obama's place on that list, it'd be on every news channel 24/7. But the media doesn't want people to know.

Gotta maintain that "I'm just like you." image Obama tries to portray.

RE: now, that was pathetic
By FITCamaro on 9/24/2008 5:21:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I know. Didn't know the exact name of the bill McCain cosponsored.

It's amazing how little people want to learn. It's easier to stick your fingers in your ears and shake your head back and forth going "LALALALALAALA IM NOT LISTENING LLALALAALALALA!"

I'll admit that I'm not perfect. That sometimes I have the wrong info. But I read all I can to try and educate myself. Not watch the news and listen to whatever crap is on. Take for instance the situation in Georgia. Georgia started it. I'll admit it. Russia wasn't entirely the bad guy there. I do think they overstepped their bounds on the response though considering South Ossetia (sp?) isn't even really their territory which Georgia moved troops into. And that Russia is quickly reverting back to the Soviet era.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki