I reckon that's only half the story, grim.

>>And the problem, indeed the fatal flaw, of Democracy will be evident in the coming months. Every three years or so we the people get the chance to vote in the party who offers us the most, and charges us the least.<<

If we were able to hold the politicians legally liable for the promises they make during the campaign, we might actually be able to make a modicum of progress. Sadly, we seem to have acquired the habit of simply shrugging our shoulders every time the Party we elected completely ignores the platform upon which they campaigned, and instead does something we didn't vote for.

In the business world, this would be fraud. And prosecuted accordingly. We just mutter "bloody politicians", and turn to the sports pages.

But this is not the answer either:

>>...raise funds in the most obvious and practical way. By going into business (again)<<

Businesses are built and thrive on risk. The capital employed is at risk. The decisions that management makes are fraught with risk. The very jobs that the employees do are at risk. The result is - although still imperfect - the best available mix of effort, reward, and value for money.

Government departments are pathologically risk-averse. They will invariably take the lowest-cost tender, on the basis that if they didn't, they'd be wasting taxpayer dollars. This inevitably removes quality from the equation, as well as experience, judgement and imagination.

The result is that no government department should be allowed to run a business more complex than cleaning public toilets.

In NSW, we know it to be as true, as night follows day, that any government project will cost billions of dollars, and fail to deliver an end result within coo-eee of the planned outcome.

If, indeed, they produce anything at all.

The list of failed projects, as well as those that don't even get off the drawing-board, is extremely long.

.

Dear Grim,

.

"Capitalists hate competition. It gets in the way of acquiring Capital."

I see you are not a man to mince words. Short back and sides. All nicely trimmed. Nothing out of line tolerated.

Dick Salsman pleads exactly the contrary in his 1999 lecture at Harvard Univsersity "What does Competition mean under Capitalism":

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2000/01/what-does-competition-mean-under-capitalism/

As Pericles seems to suggest, the truth probably lies somewhere between the extremes.

Competition is the law of nature. Evolution follows the most efficient path. But civilisation commands that we impose rules and regulations on human activity, including economic activity.

Nature eliminates those who are unable to compete. Not Civilisation. It supports them.

Capitalistic behaviour exists in nature. We humans are not the only animal species to practice capitalism.

Bees keep most of their honey in the bank. Ants not only capitalise on food (leaves, fungus etc.), they also obtain interesting yields from their investment. They employ sophisticated horticultural techniques to enhance their crop yields. They secrete chemicals with antibiotic properties to inhibit mould growth and even use manure for fertilization.

Food availability in nature is often suboptimal and unpredictable. Capitalisation assures continuity of food supply over time. It smooths out the peaks and the troughs in the market.

In addition, food capitalisation is more energy efficient than fat storage because food hoarding does not require it to be eaten, catabolised and converted, internally, into a storable form of energy until mobilized.

Overeating, with its resultant fat storage and increased body mass, also has the inconvenience of exposing animals to an increased predation risk, as ambulation becomes more cumbersome and slow. They, themselves, become food storage for other animals.

There's safety in capitalism.

.

“Businesses are built and thrive on risk...”
For truth, justice, and the American Way!
Really, Pericles?
Really?
Leaving such highly original thoughts on an old story (propaganda) long taught by (Capitalist) schools, the physical truth is businesses thrive on profits. The most profitable businesses (and least risky) are those which enjoy the least amount of Competition (think Bill Gates, enjoying a 90% share of the OS market, or Carlos Slim -controlling 90% Mexican landlines and 80% mobile coverage).
The only businesses which 'thrive' on risk are of course insurance companies, and obviously they thrive only when the risks are more apparent than real.
Since '08, the world's very largest corporations ('too big to be allowed to fail') have achieved business Nirvana, successfully managing to privatise their profits while socialising their losses, guaranteed by tax payers money.
What risk?
Mind you, I agree with the sentiment of your argument. Businesses SHOULD thrive on risk. But so long as businesses are allowed to buy out, merge with or ruthlessly eliminate any business which poses any risk to them by fair means or foul, this environment will remain purely hypothetical.
I also agree with your sentiments about Governments; however there are some businesses which are largely bureaucratic by nature, and therefore ideally suited to Government control or oversight. Think Banks, insurance companies...
Innovation comes from Competitive businesses, working in a Competitive environment. This is where (small, at least) businesses really thrive. I wonder how many innovative, fledgling businesses are swallowed and silenced every year for posing too great a 'risk' to established industries?
Governments may (arguably) not be great at running businesses, and (inarguably) bloody awful at innovation, but there is no reason why the Gov. can't be more supportive -and protective- of smaller, weaker businesses.
It really only requires us to apply the same standards of decency (the same legal framework) to the business world that we apply to our society; that we MUST apply if we are to reasonably claim to be 'civilised'.

G'day Bugsy,
This is of course an excellent argument for Capitalism (at least superficially); and has been for the 150 odd years since Herbert Spencer first proposed it.
(Yawn).
Yes, there is safety in Capitalism.
For those with Capital.
For those without, the economic future in this oh so 'natural' system is about as rosy as being smeared with honey and pegged to one of those very efficient ant hills.
Check your natural system for: Altruism, Honour, sympathy, empathy, charity, nobility, selflessness, generosity, Philosophy, Morality, Ethics...
Are we to eschew these very Human characteristics for their lack of utility or efficiency?
If we as humans were obliged to obey just one law, I for one would much prefer “treat others as you yourself would like to be treated”, over Survival of The Fittest.

There's safety in capitalism, says Banjo. You can't be serious, surely? What a terrible comment to put at the end of this important thread!

Banjo, the world we live is is tearing itself to pieces as, under the greed-driven capitalist system, a few nations (one in particular) struggle to dominate all others, as the inequality of wealth increases daily, as wars being fought over scarce resources and strategic advantage rage endlessly, as billions starve or are impoverished or homeless, as nuclear Armageddon beckons.

Whatever could you have been thinking, Banjo? Capitalism, along with religion, is a curse that is destroying our world and turning humans into pigs like the ones in Animal Farm.

If we don't change our world, Banjo, we will soon become extinct!

That's the stark choice.

Banjo Paterson,

I think it's a matter of degree.

Yes, of course the intelligence to store nutrient for the future and to enhance cultivation and harvest are techniques which optimize survival of any group, but the arrival of "Capitalism as a system" didn't herald anything new in that respect. (funny that you use ants in your example - they're the only other species - save for a few varieties of rats - that practice intra-species warfare).

You say there is safety in capitalism. I say there is safety in civilisation.

Grim's list of "Altruism, Honour, sympathy, empathy charity, nobility, selflessness, generosity, Philosophy, Morality, ethics" don't have any particular connection with capitalism, but they do with the notion of civilisation. Capitalism, if anything, dilutes the human propensity to practice those virtues.

A case in point: capitalism has delivered to India a revolution in agriculture. It has replaced old-fashioned farming techniques, replaced them with broad acre monoculture. In doing so, it has had dire effects on India's environment so much so that it is almost completely "unsustainable". The soil is poisoned and degraded the groundwater is poisoned and depleted. Tens of millions of people have migrated off the land to shanty towns near cities. They have lost much ancient knowledge of horticulture and biodiversity, things they practiced for thousands of years.

How is this going to work out for Indian's in the future. Capitalism only delivers until everything is eaten up and polluted. It is a finite fairytale and one in which the piper must be paid.

Civilisations that have endured for thousands of years buy into capitalism and pollute themselves into oblivion.