Yes, I'd also like to read an article by Peter Hume.

Severin -In short, you are a waste of time.

Just because you have been unable to answer once where collectivism has been anything other than a yoke upon the people who suffer it and ahs produced nothing other than at best a complete waste to at worst, mass murder;

Is no justification for you to get “snippy”

As you said “you have not argued for protectionism or non-trade,

But you have criticised the free-trade benefits of capitalism

Regarding “small-minded” that is because, I repeat, you have made no argument at all, all you have done is bleat like a sheep and whine like a jet engine.

At least, under a libertarian capitalist system, I am free to be a waste of time and you are free to bleat and whine..

Under a collectivist system the state believes it owns your and my body and organs, like a slave... hence the way China executes its so called criminals and harvests their corneas and organs for transplant.

I will only be a waste when you can tell me when and where “collectivism” by any of its non-de-plumes, has not been hallmarked by mass murder or been a complete waste itself.

Come on, put your brain to work instead of your spiteful small mindedness.

You challenged Peter Hume about the “alternative”

Your “alternative”... I bet it requires collective ownership of productive resources presently owned and managed by private individuals and corporations

If not, then what are you promoting?

I made a list of failed “alternatives to capitalism” – you have neither acknowledged or challenged that list.

Your churlishness is getting tiresome but fear not, my resolve to prevail is sustained by my belief in the superiority of libertarian capitalist values.

As a capitalist I do not need anything from you, your effort or your tax contributions, to personally flourish -

but every collectivist demands absolute control of what is owned by someone else to make their evil a fact, regardless that their ideas have repeatedly failed people in the past.

Stern - How about this line of reasoning...

Those at the apex of libertarian capitalism who drive the markets caused the GFC with their insatiable appetite for derivatives manufactured from sub-prime mortgages...but tell me if you think I've got it wrong.

Dear Peter Hume,
Only time for a bit of a rave, so hear's your chance to blow me out of the water.

1) If you care to read through my early posts above I do answer this question. One scenario by which Capitalism is economically unsustainable is the tendency of capital creation to always radiate outwards and utilise cheaper labour. The only way to prevent this "growth" is to have a vibrant manufacturing base at home and to coerce minimum labour costs, accomplished via Marx's concept of a "standing army". This coercion, however, would ultimately trigger revolution. This scenario was headed off via the concepts of welfare and consumerism; the first ostensibly guaranteed minimum standards and the second conceived quality of life as vested in material goods. With this double bounty the working classes have been kept in harness long enough for the whole population to be renewed, now oblivious that quality of life could mean anything other than material gratification. But though this new dispensation keeps money in circulation (still finding its way into entrepreneur's pockets), the new Keynesian paradigm is problematic in that consumers are endlessly ambitious and expensive.
Cont..

...Cont.
Though this is a driver of commodity production, and wealth, the costs of welfare means the only way to maintain a profit is to move offshore and continue to screw the means of production (Exploitation of China's and India's vast working classes have of course facilitated an unprecedented consumer binge in wealthy countries and enormous corporate profits, such that we are in the midst of a cultural shift we could call "blase consumerism", an affliction that renders emerging generations devoid of what amount to survival or "hunter-gather" skills and general hardiness. I've mentioned elsewhere that some children throw away the pointy end of a cornetto because it contains cheap chocolate (unthinkable when I was a kid). We will of course need those survival skills (and the ability to eat liver) when things turn sour: resources get thin or too dear to extract; manufacturing is all offshore but getting more expensive in any case as labour costs rise with the general expansion; corporations become nationionless monopolies and commodities regress into cruder, cheaper forms to meet the new demand (there's money to be made from global destitution!). Manufacturing offshore cannot possibly stay viable as labour cost go up; intellectual property rights and know-how are eroded and infringed; raw materials at home are depleted or prices are driven down due to corruption, competition, cost of extraction or outmoded by innovation, deliberate "starving" policies (aggressive capitalism) etc.
As you well know, PH, there's no "proof" of anything. A great deal more could be added to this litany of logical repercussions, that's why Marx needed over 3,000 pages. Sorry , but I don't have time for that, and you will cleave to your Panglossian beliefs in any case, that all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Welcome back, Col Rouge.

How's married life working out for you? Obviously no road to Damascus, but one would've hoped you'd become a little more compassionate.

Your last post could only have be written by Col Rouge in full fury at being called out on your inability to consider that there is more to life than the dollar.

No doubt we'll cross swords again. My time is valuable and you m'dear remain the same.