'The thought of Karl Marx continues to resonate throughout the world and is never more prominent than in the use of the propaganda term “capitalism” by both advocates and opponents of economic freedom. The opposition to “capitalism” by the Occupy movements show that Marxist thought has penetrated deeply into global economic culture. -- In the analysis of the American economist and social philosopher Henry George, the surplus from production is ground rent. Suppose in some geographic region, the average product of labor is greater than the wage paid to workers. The existence of that surplus at that location makes the location valuable, and so entrepreneurs will bid up what they pay to be located there. They will keep bidding up the rent until the rent has soaked up all the surplus. Generally, what economists call the “producer surplus” is really land rent, and since landowners produce nothing, they are non-producers, and the surplus is better called the “non-producer surplus.” -- Hence Marx is right that economists have fetishes. Most economists have made a fetish out of the producer surplus, imagining that it goes to the better producers rather than to non-productive landowners. This is what Mason Gaffney has called the “corruption of economics.” -- Karl Marx recognized that land rents grow not just out of soil but also from society. But rather than conclude logically that this rent should belong to society, Marx made a fetish out of labor and thought that the surplus is part of the economic wage. Marx did not understand that this surplus should be paid by the land title holder for the use of land, in order to have efficient economic calculation. The rent is an implicit reality apart from any explicit payments by tenants to landlords or no explicit payments by owner-occupants. If that rent is not explicitly paid, not only does the landowner take what comes from society and nature, but the rent generates land value that becomes an object of speculation that creates the boom and bust sequence.'

'Workers accept lower wages for certainty. Entrepreneurs accept uncertainty for the opportunity to make higher wages (profits).'

'#Daily Bell: You have made distinctions between capitalism and free markets in the past. What are they? #Wendy McElroy: Laissez-faire capitalism is a specific economic arrangement. I think it is the arrangement that best reflects individualism and promotes a general prosperity. But I am not overly evangelical about it because, first and foremost, I advocate freedom. I want peaceful people to be able to choose an economic system and economic arrangements for themselves. If my neighbors wish to set up a voluntary commune that operates along communist economic principles, it is their right and I do not intend to become an Austrian version of a Jehovah's Witness who knocks on their door to ask, "Have you let Mises into your heart?" The ability of everyone to peacefully choose their economic path for themselves is my overwhelming priority; this is the free market at work. My secondary priority is to explain to those who are interested why I consider my choice of a specific economic arrangement – that is, laissez-faire capitalism – to be superior.' -- "Have you let Mises into your heart?" :)

'In this lesson we introduce the concept of Catallactic Competition and explore where is comes from and how it is creates prosperity in a free market.' -- "The better [people] satisfy other people, the more means they acquire to achieve their own ends."

'Failure to make the relationship of people to land the starting point for the study of modern economics has led to a proliferation of complicated, contradictory theories and to an imprecise use of terms. Since governments and major industries rely heavily on the advice of economists in making their decisions, the consequences of this confusion affect us all. #Land and Capital: The confusion between ‘land’ and ‘capital’ is particularly damaging to clear thought, because the two entities behave in utterly different ways in the process of wealth production: #1. Land is not produced by human beings at all, while capital is produced entirely by human activity (labour) operating on land. ... -- Ignoring the real nature of land and treating it as the private property of individuals has caused the human race much trouble and misery. Recognising this mistake gives us the opportunity to base our economy on a system of natural justice which will lead to a fairer, more prosperous and happier society.'

POINTING FINGER IS POINTING --> 'To the extent that capitalism has gone wrong, it is because it was allowed to become corrupted and hijacked by vested interests. Capitalism’s tendency towards excess and self-destruction is a matter of well-documented record and repeated regret. As long ago as the 18th century, Adam Smith noted that “as soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce”.' <-- POINTING FINGER IS POINTING

'The political divide between the champions of the public sector and the private sector misses the point; the key divide is between those who support the monopolistic tendencies of both capitalism and government, and those who support the competitive effects of markets. As Adam Smith, who championed the market but not capitalism, put it: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” The market is where these conspiracies get exposed. To win in it, you don’t lobby, you innovate. Wherever free markets have been even tentatively tried, from Ancient Greece to modern Hong Kong, they have produced not just rising living standards, but net moves towards peace, tolerance, freedom and equality. Capitalism represents the interests of the rich, whereas the market represents the interests of the poor. Let’s hear it for the market as the antidote to capitalism.'

"A century ago a free market meant an economy free of rentiers, free of unearned income, free of landlords, and free of bankers."

'Dominant Social Theme: The problems in the world today can all be tracked back to the big corporations – the corporatocracy that runs the world. -- Who runs the corporations? Hm-mm. It seems to us that the corporations and Wall Street itself would not exist in their current world-spanning posture without CENTRAL BANKING and the ability of those who supervise the mechanism to print endless amounts of money from nothing. This is what is rapidly turning the world into a single, large banana republic, or more grimly, a global gulag. Why Ms. Wolf cannot see this is a mystery to us. With so much information available on the Internet about central banking and the elite clique that evidently and obviously runs it, one could be forgiven for beginning to think that those who point fingers at corporations, or even politicians, are practicing a form of disinformation. Because of the Internet and what we call the Internet Reformation, the mercantilist strategy has been well exposed of late and the Anglosphere power elite that is behind the greater manipulation doesn't like it. They have counterattacked, just as they did during the era of the Gutenberg Press, by creating populist movements to confuse people about the real culprits. But just as happened then, these movements eventually shall spin out of control, creating results that support freedom in ways that the elites fear but cannot control. In the meantime, we have to put up with Occupy Wall Street – which is not controlled at the "street" level but is certainly controlled at the top.' -- Pied pipers are piping

'Dominant Social Theme: The elites are a bunch of corporations and greedy capitalists. What banking families? They're never mentioned in the mainstream media, are they? So how can they exist? -- ...the Anglosphere power elite wants to create world government and it needs maximum chaos to do so. Of course, this doesn't bode well for the future but it's important to face it unflinchingly. War, depression, famine, plagues – all of these are weapons the elites can use if they can get away with it. And that's the crux issue. Even now, the elites behind this incipient chaos need to disguise their actions. They need to hide – to present solutions that seem to address the problems they are actually causing with their incessant central banking booms and increasingly depressive busts. -- We believe that Western elites were set back as regards their control of the world because of the advent of the Gutenberg Press. We believe this is a state of affairs they will have to grapple with again in a different context as a result of the truth-telling of the Internet, which we've taken to calling the Internet Reformation. As people wake up, the elite finds it more and more difficult to implement its world-spanning plans. We see many failures in the elite's program. Global warming, peak oil, central banking, even the establishment of the European Union itself – all of these elite memes and more have come under attack in the Internet era.'

'Marcuse said that you could never break the spell. That however much you took American culture and played rebelliously with it, you would always remain possessed by it. But this would set in motion a terrible logic within the New Left that would lead to a creeping distrust of all dreams of the future. ...in 1964 Marcuse became pessimistic. He wrote another book called One Dimensional Man. He had realised, he said, that capitalist society was far more manipulative than he had imagined. It had learnt how to take those desires and feed the masses spurious, addictive pleasures that enslaved them. This wasn't liberation – it was a dark world of what looked on the surface like an entrancing modern culture in which sex was discussed and portrayed openly, but really it was all cheap gratifications and stupefying pleasures that blotted out true human needs. Marcuse gripped the student left because he describe the revolution in a completely new way. The struggle was in your heads as much as in the streets. It was summed up in a slogan - There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads. He must be Destroyed.'

'Dominant Social Theme: There is no great private conspiracy to run the world. It's just a bunch of corporations. Blame capitalist greed, but don't ever blame the great central banking families. They don't even exist. -- Free-Market Analysis: The Internet is aflame with conspiracy theories about a small group of impossibly wealthy central banking families and their enablers and associates. These include corporate, religious, financial and military personnel. Now this same power elite has, in our view, struck back with a meme of its own. Yes, power is centralized, but it's CORPORATE power. Corporations are to blame. This is, endlessly, a strategy seized from the same weary playbook, offered up over and over again. The Rothschilds, for instance, along with other central banking families evidently and obviously run the BIS and other central banking paraphernalia. The Rothschilds virtually created Israel and built its Knesset and Supreme Court building, with all its Illuminati symbolism. We are supposed to believe this family and others like them are mere bystanders – puppets of the corporations in which they actually hold massive private interests and actively run?'

'Dominant Social Theme: We want justice for the world and the UN will give it to us. -- Free-Market Analysis: Kalle Lasn, founder of Adbusters magazine, based in Vancouver, B.C. – the magazine that issued the call for the initial Occupy Wall Street protests – has called on people to protest the upcoming G20 while demanding a one-percent tax on financial transactions. The revenue raised would be enormous and the lingering question is where this incredible revenue stream would be directed. The answer is obvious to those who follow what we call "directed history." The intention is likely to fund the UN as part of a final push to rationalize and perfect the initial stages of true world government. As we have written before, the movement toward world government is happening very quickly now. The ramifications are enormous and people who write off these protests as spontaneous and short-lived are not grasping what is taking place, in our humble opinion. The one-percent tax has been a staple of United Nations demands for more than a decade. Google UN and "one-percent tax" and plenty of information will appear – over three million citations, in fact.' -- Pied pipers are piping

'To conflate Wall Street – as an industry, anyway – with central banking is simply wrong. One is an evolution of the free market. The other hides behind it. Put central banking out of business and the worst excesses of Wall Street will almost immediately become a thing of the past. Put Wall Street out of business and central bankers will reconstitute over the weekend. Money Power lies with central banks, run by the Anglosphere power elite. These elites are quite prepared to sacrifice Wall Street. They WANT to regulate the private sector. Regulate it until it is cold as a corpse so that they can re-animate as they choose. The more laws there are, the better they do. The process is called mercantilism. The powers-that-be CONTROL governments. Pass a law and you are only adding to their arsenal. In fact, the leaders of Occupy Wall Street are DELIBERATELY turning the movement into a populist protest that looks to government for changes that will make societies work better. It is evident and obvious. Who knows who they work for – but evidently they are not who and what they say they are. We wish we were wrong.'

'Is it "conspiratorial" to ask why? The whole one-world-order campaign is a conspiracy, in fact. It's managed by a tiny coterie of central banking families and their economic, political, business, religious and military enablers. They've created and pursued this conspiracy for decades, for centuries. And with appropriate Freudian projection, they point fingers at their critics and scream "conspiracy" when anyone dares to analyze what is evidently and obviously occurring. Obama finds the Occupy Wall Street protests compelling. Writing for the most influential liberal newspaper in America, Krugman finds them clearly appropriate: "The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right." For us, Krugman's column and Obama's speech on the same day seem no coincidence. It is part of a larger orchestrated conspiracy to whip up resentment against "capitalism" worldwide. The results are to be some sort of international regulatory regime, perhaps, that will do much to usher in far more aggressive global governance. It is the next step in an apparent conspiracy to create a one-world order.'

'What we call the Internet Reformation – the era of the Internet – has provided a good deal more information on the way the world works. It's helped people understand why government doesn't work and why regulations are generally pernicious and usually encourage the very trends they are supposed to prevent. But education only goes so far; and it's an ongoing process. In response, the Anglosphere power elite that we write about regularly has fought back. It's been trying to crank up the "blame Wall Street" theme for several years now. Now, finally, it's catching on. Unfortunately, Occupy Wall Street has taken a (predictably) anti-free market turn. It's apparently being hijacked by the modern Left, and the rhetoric of individuals involved increasingly mimics the socialist heyday of the early 20th century. On purpose, they are creating a straw man. Free-markets don't really exist these days.' -- Pied pipers are piping

'Dominant Social Theme: Blair started the Libya war. Gaddafi didn't give him and JP Morgan what they wanted and now he's paid a dreadful price. It's all about the money. Modern wars are always about resources. Besides, we're running out of aluminum. Peak Aluminum is only years away! -- The Anglosphere elites have a motive in ensuring the war-for-resources meme is spread about the mainstream media, mainly in leftist newspapers. The idea of greedy, grubbing capitalists is a quite convenient one as it confuses what is actually happening. Much better to blame wars on exploitative corporations than intergenerational familial regimes controlling central banks. Blair ... is being paid to attract heat and light that might otherwise end up striking London's City itself... Blair is yet only a pimple on a larger, uglier visage, though surely a sizeable blemish. -- The roots run much, much deeper. And so does the institutionalized malevolence. Maybe all the way back to Babylon.'

'If you increase the workforce by 10% but only increase the resource by 5% then something is going to happen to the distribution of resources. ...the real reason for this crisis is not capitalism, but the actions of communist and socialist governments before they started the process of opening their economies. They created barriers to the integration of their labour force into the productive and enriching capitalist world economy, and then suddenly started 'dropping' the labour into the world economy at a rate that the capitalist system could not absorb. It is why we see the increasing divide in incomes between the rich and the rest. It is not the evils of capitalism, but rather the last terrible contribution of years of rejection of capitalism in countries like China and India. They created a flood of new labour into the world economy, and the result is that labour has been devalued. ...the fundamental causes...[:] government constraints and interference with free market capitalism.'

'Gone are the days when there was a great philosophical divide between East and West, or between the West's so-called democracies and "communism." Jiabao's speech could have been given by any functionary of the (hopefully tottering) EU. Or even have been delivered by someone from the US State Department. It tends to confirm once more the idea that the powers-that-be are working hard to smooth out differences between major powers. The rhetoric, philosophical overtones and ambitions are statist, but couched in the rhetoric of the marketplace. The idea is that the state sets parameters for capitalism, which then functions within that defined space. It is a kind of soft fascism, though one is never supposed to use the word "fascism." Additionally, in practice, it is not necessarily soft at all. The state is actually in charge of almost every facet of life and corporations, also artificial, statist entities, are merely the receptacles of state power and deliver it to "consumers."'

'...Reich is just one example of what's gone wrong with America's – and the West's – political system. Reich is regularly presented by the mainstream media as a fierce critic of the powers-that-be, a radical friend of the workingman. It is apparently an act, a farce, a beard. This man foresees chaos if the debt ceiling is not raised and considers those who wish it to remain stuck where it is to be "insane." Reich is no radical freethinker, no rebel-with-a-cause. He is merely one more piece in the phony Hegelian dialectic that the elites have foisted on the West to make sure no real sociopolitical dialogue ensues. He's taken it on himself (nobody forced him) to become part of a dominant social theme. (The world is divided between communists and capitalists and there's no other choice.) There are plenty of these people around. 99 percent of the journos, analysts and big-thinkers writing for the mainstream press participate in this false dichotomy.'

'The term “capitalism” has been the most successful propaganda term in human history. ...the term “capital” masks the underlying and more fundamental interest that receives governmental privileges: ... the big landowners. If you want to understand the economic policies of governments world-wide, and the main cause of social problems, it becomes clearer if you grasp this proposition: The main purpose of government is to serve the big landed interests. ...the biggest subsidy to landowners is implicit: it is the enormous increase in land rent and land value due to the public goods provided by government. Streets, parks, security, schooling, transit, etc., all make land more attractive and productive. The rich pay high taxes, but they get it back, and often much more, in higher land value. Taxes fall most heavily on the middle class, as the state tax-confiscates about half the wages of a typical worker, including the taxes the pay when from their remaining wages they buy taxed goods.'

'... Marx and his followers then came along and mucked up the language and thinking. Marx wanted to distinguish the workers from all those who owned assets, and so he lumped land into capital. From then on, most economists followed Marx in focusing only on labor and capital, and the physiocratic and classical emphasis on land was set aside. The neoclassical economic thought that followed the classical was encouraged to forget land, since this benefited the landed interests who financed them, and it also made the mathematical models easier if there are two rather than three factors. From now on, the system would be called "capitalism." But is capital a problem? Capital provides investment, and investment and better technology is what has raised living standards world-wide. "Capitalism" makes entrepreneurs and owners of capital the villains, whereas Ricardo's law of rent shows that much of the gain from trade and technology go to the owners of land as rent...'

'...global capitalism is actually the outcome of a deliberate societal reshaping that has as its underpinnings judicial corporate activism and central banking fiat money flows. Without fiat-money flows, corporations would not have the markets and wherewithal to make disposable consumer goods that pass for modern technology. The accumulated ephemera of modern societies is startling but that doesn't make it necessary. One of the problems that Chinese leaders have in directing consumer inwards is that the various gadgets that its factories are exporting to the West are disdained by their own populations. Western capitalism is by no means preordained and has been created by mercantilist and judicial fiat. Absent "laws," industry would be generally consist of smaller companies oriented around partnerships and individuals... multinationals would not exist without judicial activism. There is no such thing as a corporation actually; there are only people—making things and buying and selling.'

'Dominant Social Theme: Capitalism always seeks to exploit the worker and is always expansive. Wars are always those of exploitation. -- The above is nonsense of course but the memes keep getting repeated. It is a form of mind control ... an elaborate thematic fiction involving the way society is supposed to work. The press will play up the BP documents endlessly because they make great fodder for the perceptions that Western elites want to confirm: All wars, certainly the smaller ones, are those of Western imperialism with the goal of raw material exploitation. This removes the onus of war from the government itself, which is seen suddenly as a passive, put-upon actor. (Without evil corporations, government would be a force for good.) It also obscures the ... small, familial power elite that stands BEHIND government and is waging a war not for resources ... but to, in a sense, RUN THE WORLD. The Anglo-American elites will do anything and everything they can to obscure this fact!'

'Agnotology is the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt... Schiebinger: "Ignorance is often not merely the absence of knowledge but an outcome of cultural and political struggle."' -- Betancourt: "Agnotologic capitalism": The systemic production and maintenance of ignorance. The creation of systemic unknowns where any potential "fact" is always already countered by an alternative of apparently equal weight and value renders engagement with the conditions of reality – the very situations affective labor seeks to assuage – contentious and a source of confusion... Affective labor is the enabler for the creation of the bubbles that are characteristic of the digital capitalist economy. Where the reduction of alienation is a precondition for the elimination of dissent. Affective labor is part of a larger activity where the population is distracted by affective pursuits and fantasies of economic advancement.'

'Dominant Social Theme: Incarcerate ‘em. Then everything will be better. -- ...there is no doubt Wall Street is an enabler and that Goldman Sachs in particular sits near the center of the modern conspiracy in all its fundamental criminality. There really is no "private" sector in America anymore (but for struggling small-time entrepreneurs). However, from the power-elite point of view, these are unimportant distinctions. Capitalism is to be blamed whenever possible with an eye toward creating evermore regulation, government bureaucracy and mercantilism.' Ultimately modern-day high finance is a technocratic function. It is a supporting mechanism not a strategic one. The planning for the New World Order – the fundamental strategy of ruin – is made at much higher levels by a handful of banking families and their enablers. Blaming financial entities for the endless economic catastrophes that afflict the West is a bit like blaming meteorologists for earthquakes.'

'King's statement to the Treasury Select Committee as reported in the UK Telegraph is a pitch-perfect defense of central banking using the meme of private-sector blame. ...central banking blows up economies, leading to more regulation which further concentrates power in the hands of a few, allowing government and society to be even more efficiently run by the elite via mercantilism. It's kind of a closed feedback loop. The more chaos, the more regulation, the more leverage the elite has to reignite the process. Power is continually being centralized and the middle classes themselves (the elite's ultimate target) will actually clamor for the regulation that facilitates the process. In order to initiate the process, blame must be cast. There has not been enough anger at the private banking sector, especially in Britain where wrath has been focused – most alarmingly from the elite's point of view – at central banking itself. This is a direct result of the Internet...'

'...what is the incentive for a company running a government monopoly to provide a better brand of service to its "clients?" Ultimately, privatization is nothing more than mercantilism – the opportunity for private entities to gain control of the public purse. The very same private entities, controlled by wealthy elite money interests who have generated their enormous purchasing power by sucking the productive lifeblood from the very populace, will now "save the day" by effectively managing the countries infrastructure on behalf of a bankrupt (defrauded) populace. They will "invest" some of their appropriated fiat wealth, all made possible thanks to the central bankers and bought-and-paid-for politicos, and end up owning anything of "value" still remaining in America. What a deal! Privatization is just one more dominant social theme in our view, making the realization of elite command-and-control goals even more achievable. It's not what it appears to be.'

'Dominant Social Theme: Invest wisely and well. – Let's try to put this long-running power elite promotion into perspective. We don't agree with the LA Time's perspective (see article excerpt above). It's not nest-egg versus Social Security (which the US cannot afford, especially because there are no SS funds, only fancy IOUs). There is a third way, which is to get rid of central banking entirely and let tortured Western economies gradually deflate. As economies undistort without the endless goad of monetary stimulation, people would gradually begin to be self-sufficient again. Nuclear families would collapse and extended families would reappear; this is the logical solution to old age, not frantic investing leading to the selection of an old-age home where one is likely to be abused before dying. ...the dollar-reserve system died in 2008, along with the popular belief that one could count on "investing" for retirement. It was never a reality; it was fiction.'

"If you unconsciously resent the unjust and exploitative authority of your parents, and you project that onto the capitalist, you will not escape brutal authority – in fact, you will only intensify it. And that intensification takes the form of the State. If you are a slave, you can't escape. Involuntaryism leads to vengeance, to anger, to rage, to fantasies of destruction. Where we are not free to choose we become slaves to hatred. If you are not free to choose your companions then displacement, distortions, rippled subterfuges in rational thought, abandonment of empiricism, retreat into rank delusion – is inevitable. Because everything that you will believe when you don't have choice will be a mask for that lack of choice ... a mask to justify abandoning choice. If you fundamentally reject choice, you cannot have as your ideal a voluntary system. If you reject voluntaryism in your personal relations, you cannot sustain voluntaryism as an ideal in your ideology."

"What is it that goes on in somebody's life that would lend them to be more susceptible to Marxism? There is a strangely stale and dead relationship that is always depicted in Marxism where there is a factory owner, a bunch of workers – and nobody else throughout the entire economic landscape. There is also within the Marxist class analysis not much room for [the idea of social mobility amongst the classes]. The capitalists can't fall and the workers can't rise. It's all frozen in time. Why [would Marxists] accept that there's no competition for workers between capitalists unless they are [unconsciously] mistaking the employer/employee relationship for the parent/child relationship? [There is no social mobility within a family.] Children are children and parents are parents. The family is communism; the family is socialistic. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs... That is the definition of the parent/child relationship."

'From Laurie Penny: "These young people are sick of leaders, even leaders our own age. They won’t be told what to do, but that sentiment is more of a honed manifesto than a collective teenage door-slamming strop. When the meeting is over and consensus reached, the collective slams back into action, planning an escalation in the protests leading up to the crucial vote on tuition fees later this month. These protesters have a honed protestant work ethic, a coherent ideological framework, stunning technological facility and absolutely nothing to lose. No wonder the administration is getting worried.“ -- And here from Phil: "Twitter is as capitalist as McDonalds. Facebook is fundamentally the same beast as Microsoft. Your internet connection is owned by a private company. Private ownership of the means of social media allows the ruling class to assert their monopoly over communication if needs be.”' -- Haha! "The means..." -- What have you bought into; what will it cost to buy you out?

'Is there a recovery? Do you feel it, dear reader? Deep down in 'dem bones? We don't. We've explained the reasons why in dozens of articles: The fiat meltdown of 2008 was a meltdown of MONEY caused by the Internet's ability to expose the truth of a fraudulent central banking controlled monetary system and the power elite who benefit from the process of wealth redistribution. It was not caused by "faulty" economies specifically. It is the system itself that collapsed and at the base of it all is the myth of the mighty US dollar. What "melted down" in 2008, as we've long observed, was a 100-year-old central banking system. The mainstream Anglo-American media won't comment on this of course. We're still reading articles attributing the meltdown to the removal of Glass-Steagal or the mispricing of sub-prime mortgages. No, the same thing happened in 2008 that happened in 1929. The system collapsed. But this is the mother-of-all-collapses. It is the Big Bang of Black Swan events.'

'The so-called differences between Chinese and Western business is increasingly a kind of dominant social theme in our view, one intended to present the perspective that private-market capitalism is under attack from a more brutal form of "state"-capitalism. This is in fact an effort to defuse criticism that the West is becoming too authoritarian and too statist. Look there – we are told – China is far worse, though perhaps more efficient. Here in the West we are devoted to our freedoms and will never go down the Chinese road. How has corporatism evolved in the West? In the past, we've discussed the idea that the corporation itself is an artificially manufactured entity and that, absent the current statist judicial system, corporations would not exist. When one examines Western capitalism, one continually comes to the conclusion that it has evolved away from entrepreneurialism and private markets and that this evolution is accelerating.'

'This is how Western capitalism operates after all. Too little is made of the connection between stock exchanges and central banking, though much is made of the connection between central banking and the graduated income tax which is seen as necessary to pay off the interest of the debt that the larger government accumulates. But in fact stock exchanges along Western (American) lines are part of the process of managing the booms and busts that central banks inevitably generate. Because too few people understand the inevitability of booms and busts, nor the connections between central banks and exchanges, the middle class is inevitably damaged by market downturns. Only those who have some understanding of Austrian economics have a chance, in our view, of participating in the stock market on equal footing with market pros. ...understanding macro-economic forces are perhaps the most efficient for people who don't want to spend all their spare time involved in market analysis.'

'Dominant Social Theme: We need to print trillions of dollars from nothing. -- Western capitalism—regulatory democracy—has always been sold to the masses as a system in which the biggest and smallest have an equal chance at grabbing the proverbial gold ring. What the financial crisis and the "greater recession" have shown clearly is the amount of capital concentrated in a few hands. The real power and money is indeed concentrated at the very top and the scary thing is that Bernanke is merely a servant of money power, not a chieftain by any means. And yet despite the vast power and wealth available to the intergenerational and familial banking elite that runs the Western world, we detect more than a whiff of panic in the air. The creaky mechanism of counterfeiting that animates the heart of the central banking conspiracy has been wielded in full view of the Internet. The Western elites, we understand, are terrified of only one thing: civil insurrection.'

"Parental/sibling trauma has to go somewhere. The more it goes into the state, the less it needs to go into religion, which is why marxists were virulently anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, anti-democratic/existing quasi- monarchical governments within Europe in the 19th century. They had given up on God and therefore all of their projections [went] out of God and into the state/corporations – which is why marxists are so virulently anti-capitalist, because the capitalist is the elder sibling and the state is the parent. That's why they focus so much of their rage onto the capitalist because the capitalist is the intermediate power, [the elder sibling who has] more power than the worker [(the younger siblings)] but less power than the state. But they can't focus on the evils of the state because if they focus on the evils of the state, they have no solution because their solution is an ultimate state."

"On the other hand, you would then assume that people who were not religious but also drawn to the same [family abuse] paradigm... that because they don't have God or Satan to project their family/sibling abuses into, they would be far more ferocious about the existing state and existing corporations. So if you're an atheist or agnostic or skeptic or rationalist or non-fundamentalist – then you don't have the big bag of God – therefore your projections have to go somewhere else. Which explains why the more secular, humanistic/left-wing/marxist cadres within society tend to be so virulently anti-corporate and anti- existing state." -- Continues...

"So the more religious [people] are, the more they will tend to be free-market and less afraid of corporations because corporations don't have the projection of sibling abuse... However, Satan and God has all the projections. In the same way, to some degree, it would explain why more religious people tend to be less statist because – in the modern world, the modern libertarian paradigm – they have God into which they place all of their parental projections and therefore they can look upon the state as a thing itself rather than a big bag of emotional projection. So [religious people] can criticize the state because they're not unconsciously criticizing their parents. But if you criticize God, they get very angry and offended because then you are criticizing their parents. If you say God is not virtuous, they hear: my parents are not virtuous on an unconscious level. But because they don't project that onto the state, they can criticize the state very heavily."

"All unprocessed trauma must find a route somewhere, and if it does not find it's route in the truth, then it will find its route in mythology: the mythology of nationalism, of racism, of collectivism, of religion, of superstition, and so on. If trauma is not processed it will find substitutes in mythology. If that is the case – and sibling abuse is the last great unprocessed trauma of society – then this theory is able to explain some interesting set of phenomenon that occur within the realm of libertarianism -to- marxism. -- So Satan is a stand-in for the elder sibling; God is a stand-in for the parent. Corporations are a stand-in for the elder sibling; the state is a stand-in for parents. If that is true then we would expect... that those who are more religious would tend to be less critical of corporations. Why? Because they have the big receptacle, the big black bag of Satan to project all of their sibling trauma into." -- Continues...

"The temptation is to blame the younger sibling as if everything is equal. In this way, the republicans blame the poor for being poor; blame the blacks for being in ghettos; blame women for making less money; and so on. And then the younger siblings say they need the state to protect them from rapacious corporations and polluters and so on – when, of course, the government produces the corporations and polices and regulates them already – so if corporations are doing evil and the government is far more powerful than the corporations and regulates the corporations, then clearly it is not the corporations that are at fault – it is the government that is at fault since it has all the power. But it's far easier to blame the elder siblings and excuse the parents than it is to place the blame for evil within the family where it properly belongs, which is with the parents."

"And we see this repeated over and over in human thought. So when things go bad for government, the statists blame the corporations or they blame the party in power – they can never blame the [state (the parents), or the] principle of coercion which is the foundation of statism. And when things go bad in the world, religious people can't blame God because that would be to question virtue of God and foundation of their propaganda. [So they] invent someone else to blame, and in religion it's all sibling blame. So the elder sibling is Satan and the younger sibling is humanity. Blame the victim is absolutely essential for destructive families and for statism and religion. -- And what about the elder siblings? Certain punitive forms of libertarianism or republicanism which blame the victim are the elder sibling's and/or parent's response to the vulnerability of the younger siblings when they are hurt, ([usually] as a result of the actions of the parent or elder sibling)." -- Continues...

"...given that infanticide was so common throughout history, children who displeased their parents would very often be abandoned or killed. This is why the taboo has remained so powerful into the modern world. Questioning the virtue of parents arouses live and death anxiety for a lot of people. When you have a fantasy of virtue in a situation of evil, the only way that you can maintain the fantasy of virtue is for there to be a stand-in which explains the evil. So in general, whenever you have an absolute power, a non-power, and an intermediate power; parents, younger siblings, elder siblings – the youngest sibling, in order to preserve the illusion of the virtue of the parents, is going to pretend that the evil he's experiencing is coming from the middle power, the elder sibling, and that he must appeal to the parent in order to protect himself... But the reality is that the parents create the abuses of the elder sibling by being abusive themselves. And this is why it doesn't work."

"Our feeling towards our parents get translated into our feelings towards the state. And our feelings towards our siblings get translated into our feelings towards corporations. Clearly people understand that corporations have less power than governments... but corporations affect them more negatively and directly. [The same is true of siblings]: Elder siblings have less power than parents but their negative behaviour affects younger siblings more immediately and consistently. People won't process the degree to which parents are complicit in sibling abuse. So why would people go to the government to protect them from corporations? Because the government says that its main purpose is to protect them from corporations, just as parents say [they will] protect them from their siblings. When you say you want to get rid of the state, what most people hear is that they're going to be left at the mercy of their elder sibling and mom and dad won't do anything to control his/her behaviour."

"You can't have any more empathy and love for yourself than you can have for the weakest around you." -- "Everyone is always talking about their family when they're talking about politics." -- "The reason that you would need to be addicted to the pathetic and destructive rush that comes from literally stealing candy from the hands of babes is that you have learned from somewhere that power is composed of two things: #1. An ugly grab and #2. A triumphant moralizing." -- "Whenever you are cruel to those around you, you raise a need for a state in their mind especially when they're helpless." -- "The primary reason for sadism is that it is an attempt to overpower and master feelings of intense helplessness... If you will not accept those feelings of helplessness and agony of being brutalized by power, then you must normalize the brutalization of that power: you project your own helplessness onto other people and then you torture it because the only other possibility is that you feel it."

'The solution is usually the same (though again, we have not read Marshall's full book) and features additional programs and initiatives that are somehow not tainted by elite interference. This is government, in other words, without mercantilism. It is a fantasy in our view. It cannot exist. If there are governmental levers of power, wealthy elites will always find a way to pull them. The only solution is to starve the beast. Remove the levers of power altogether, or at least as much as possible. We believe in free-markets. We do not see it in class-warfare terms, necessarily. We do not see it even in terms of capitalist exploitation. We see it as a kind of cultural problem. These families have been pursuing the same goals for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. And for those who say it is impossible, we point to modern royalty and its entrenchment. It is indeed possible to leverage privilege into law and perpetuate wealth through national mandates. The evidence is all around us.'

'The problem the power elite is having currently is that its Deus ex machina has been thoroughly exposed via the Internet... We use the term capitalism to describe the current economic system in the West as opposed to a "free market" one. The capitalism that the West has installed features the price fixing of money via central banks, a boom/bust economy and resultant war-based recovery mechanism. Every part of the current system emphasizes state power rather than individual entrepreneurship. The result is a system woefully divorced from underlying realities. Perhaps it is arrogance? Perhaps merely impatience? We are not sure. But it seems to us that even as the elite's fear-based promotions continue to fade and fail, the elite has stepped up its activity and is striving more strongly than ever for increasingly centralized, worldwide governance. Whether social unrest expresses itself in violence or in mass protest, we do not know. But we tend to believe it is different this time.'

'The word “capitalism” is an antagonym, meaning that it has at least two commonly used definitions that are completely at odds with (antagonistic to) each other: #1. A free market economy. #2. The present state-subsidized corporatist economic order or its features (e.g. the prevalence of absentee-ownership and wage-labor). -- Most agorists tend to use the second definition of “capitalism.” In An Agorist Primer (p. 30), Samuel Edward Konkin III wrote: "Sometimes the terms “free enterprise” and “capitalism” are used to mean “free market.” Capitalism means the ideology (ism) of capital or capitalists. Before Marx came along, the pure free-marketeer Thomas Hodgskin has already used the term capitalism as a pejorative; capitalists were trying to use coercion — the State — to restrict the market. Capitalism, then, does not describe a free market but a form of statism…"' -- *rolls eyes at the endless redefinitons* Capitalism != Corporatism, Mercantilism or Statism. Capitalism = Capitalism

'From our point of view, the article [by McKinsey and Co. writers] espouses a kind of dominant social theme – that the Great Recession and the pain it is causing is part and parcel of the natural evolution of capitalism. By focusing on creative destruction, the article does not have to deal with the overwhelming monetary failure of central banking that brought the West to this place. That is also, probably, why Schumpeter is popular with the bankers at the Federal Reserve. He provides them with a template that allows them to avoid talking about the monetary disasters that they tend to inflict upon the world. What we have then in Newsweek is an article that misrepresents a man and his economic theory in order to try to divert attention away from the monetary failures of the central banking business cycle. Further, the solutions offered by the article are predictably statist and partake of the same failed authoritarian model that has brought us the current misery.'

'A short example of how to use a universal theory of ethics to prove the validity of property rights.' -- “It is impossible to argue against property without using property.”

'What is socialism? We cannot offer anything like a complete account here, but it begins with the idea that society’s resources should be directed to serving the needs of people, not the profit dictates of the few.' -- Spot the false dichotomy? How about the profit of the many? How about 'the people' direct themselves rather than be subject to your *shoulds*? And how are YOU separate from 'the people'? What are your *needs* in creating abstract categories called 'the people'? Engineering an exploitable ideological *resource* perhaps? Dear 2+2=5, Please learn to debate on facts rather than attempting flimsy rhetoric that a 5 year-old could poke a finger through. It's 2010. People are smart now and they have facebook accounts that prove—contrary to your OBVIOUS abstraction called 'the people'— that they are individuals and yet still quite capable of co-operating with each other voluntarily and in peace. Now back to your state-funded academies and... LEAVE THOSE KIDS ALONE!

'Still, it is fashionable to maintain, as the Economist does, that the West is in a fervor of full-blooded capitalism of the laissez-faire variety. How on earth the Economist and its writers can maintain this fiction is beyond us. It is part of the Hegelian dialectic, we suppose. If one part of the elite machinery claims that what we have got is capitalism-in-the-raw, then another mainstream element can continually claim that such naked and merciless enterprises need to be ameliorated by the rationalizing hand of government. Lord knows where it ends, though, as the cognitive dissonance grows continually more extreme. One visualizes the USSR, eventually, and the Economist magazine, as dry and witty as ever, droning on about the competitive difficulties of aligning five-year plans and observing cheerfully that the West's Leviathan will have to grow bigger still in the name of democracy and fairness and to ensure that free-markets do not get out of hand. Eventually it all implodes.'

'...it is the most common of all dominant social themes – that economic downturns are the fault of big, powerful private interests. This sort of populism has been cultivated by the power-elite throughout the past several centuries as a way of promoting an "us versus them" mentality. Let the "people" blame capitalism and turn to government for solutions and the power elite that stands behind government benefits inordinately. A tiny power elite basically controls the world's mercantilist central banks. Central bankers, politicians and others stand in front of this mercantilist crowd (worth trillions) to give the appearance that the system is necessary, inevitable and the natural outcome of a free market. But it is not so. ...because of the Internet, people DO understand that it is the central banking system itself that is at fault. The tool kit which has availed the elite over many generations is not working in the era of the Internet. More and more may have seen behind the curtain.'

'...this public versus private purpose is a ruse. Virtually every benefit to be obtained by way of forking out our wealth is a private benefit, something that serves the interest of some human individual in a society – maybe many of them, sometimes many of them all at once, but all are private individuals and that includes Marx and Galbraith and all their pals who are so eager to confiscate everyone else's resources for purposes they deem to be important. If they think these are important purposes, they ought to get up a collection and convince their fellows to part with what is needed to obtain them. But it is so much simpler to send out the police to collect these funds rather than to raise them by means of convincing us of the worth of these projects. When this isn't accepted much by the citizenry, the statists are deeply miffed.' -- Now listen, Statie. Mommy and Daddy really don't need to take care of you now that you're all grown up, OK? *wipes the tears from Statie's eyes* :,-(

'This series looks at the macro system within which we're living, considers that we're facing the end of that system, and looks at what might replace it in the future. It hopes to inspire people to the next Renaissance rather than a return to the Dark Ages.' -- Clearly illustrated analysis (with an unfortunate statist 'solution'). Recommended.

'The root causes and only solution for what we all face.' -- "You have to stop listening to people who tell you that the problem is the free-market – the free-market is simply private property and the non-initiation of force. This is kindergarten philosophy: Your stuff is your stuff and don't hit people." -- "Will you see reason before it's too late?"

'The elite needs a steady stream of convincing arguments to govern—and thus to manufacture the additional wealth and power that governance provides. The elite is desperate to frame an argument to explain this generational collapse using tried-and-true thesis/antithesis programmatic tools. Whether Bremmer knows it or not, his latest ideas are most valuable within this context. There is an identifiable enemy, he writes, and it is a formidable one. Western free-market capitalism and the corporations that drive it are in jeopardy. The only way to combat the challenge of state capitalism is to rein in, just a bit, the unadulterated "free-market" system that has made the West so successful. It is sort of awe-inspiring. Bremmer has manufactured an argument that begins with the assumption that the West is in fact free-market oriented. It then logically proceeds to propose the proposition that the West must continue down its regulatory road in order to remain competitive with state capitalism!'

Gisted -- Parents have a very ambivalent relationship towards capitalists. To assuage parents' guilt about using the TV as a free babysitter, capitalists put anti-capitalist messages in kids cartoons to provide parents the excuse that by letting their children watch TV programming, they are in fact educating them about the 'selfishness' of capitalism. But when parents tell their children that self-interest is bad and that you shouldn't do things for your pleasure but rather you should do things for the pleasure of others – that's a really terrifying idea for children – it totally screws up their sense of security. A child is left with a very basic question: if self-interest is bad, why did my parents have me? Because to take pleasure in my existence would be selfish, right? But if selfishness is bad, then my parents must really not want not me. -- If you genuinely take joy in your children then your children are secure in their value to you—there's nothing 'selfless' about this at all.

Oh, look! A gun in the room. -- If government price-fixing is the problem, how is more price-fixing the solution? -- "For a new social order..." -- Aww, so cute!

A studied avoidance of pointing out the gun in the room. (Stefan Molyneux) -- "We academics who are seriously involved in the world..." -- LOL

'Though the coffee chain's specific plans are not known, existing Starbucks franchises across the nation have been locked down with titanium shutters across all windows. In each coffee shop's door hangs the familiar Starbucks logo, slightly altered to present the familiar mermaid figure as a cyclopean mermaid whose all-seeing eye forms the apex of a world-spanning pyramid. In addition, newly painted trucks marked with the nuclear trefoil, the biohazard warning symbol, and various mystic runes of the Kaballah have been spotted rolling out of Starbucks distribution warehouses.'

'The intellectual wants the whole society to be a school writ large, to be like the environment where he did so well and was so well appreciated. The wordsmith intellectuals are successful within the formal, official social system of the schools, wherein the relevant rewards are distributed by the central authority of the teacher. The schools contain another informal social system within classrooms, hallways, and schoolyards, wherein rewards are distributed not by central direction but spontaneously at the pleasure and whim of schoolmates. Here the intellectuals do less well. It is not surprising, therefore, that distribution of goods and rewards via a centrally organized distributional mechanism later strikes intellectuals as more appropriate than the "anarchy and chaos" of the marketplace. For distribution in a centrally planned socialist society stands to distribution in a capitalist society as distribution by the teacher stands to distribution by the schoolyard and hallway.'

'Lying and collusion have become so systemic that every decision made drives us towards a dangerously wrong result. These decisions are leading us down the path to breakdown collapse. We want to turn the tide, so how do we effect change.' -- You withdraw 'moral' support for government and every other form of organized violence – NOW – before the suicidal parasites fully consume their hosts.

'Lawyer Capitalism = LAWCAP. LAWCAP's "capitalism" is paradoxically the most highly socialized organization in all history.'

'The people that owned the debt in the old days were identifiable; Karl Marx [using Adam Smith's prior conception of 'rent' ] referred to them as the rentiers. They were the ones who lived by clipping coupons, doing no work; they were the leeches that lived off the work of others. The rentiers were not only the ‘sometimes’ enemies of the king and his court, but they also were the ‘constant’ enemy of the working masses and the middle class. As such they could be singled out by the authorities and persecuted or robbed without much fear. Who are those who benefit from this passive income, today’s rentiers? We public and private pensioners and life insurance holders are the ones who are the rentiers. About 30% of US GDP can be classified as passive. European numbers are similar. And, now that more and more of us are at retirement age, we are expecting to live on our savings. Our retirement income might look like an entitlement to some, but to us it is our right. What happens next?'

'The problem with Western economies for at least the past 100 is mercantilist central banking. It is central banks, by overprinting money that cause first booms and then busts. The power elite, rarely if ever mentioned in Marxian analysis, stands behind this public/private central banking system – which began as an Anglo-American invention but has now spread around the world. The Internet has allowed real discussions of the economic fraud of the so-called modern capitalist system. And the system itself has so badly failed in the past few years that it is probably much more difficult to cover-up the damage this time. For those apt to defend the system, the next few years likely shall prove both difficult and unforgiving. We anticipate continued conversations about alternative forms of money and different ways of approaching the economy. The elite of course shall suggest further centralization and central banking control. But we have a feeling that this will be a hard argument to make.'

'We are emphatically not apologists for Goldman Sachs, but Goldman is NOT the fundamental problem, no matter how long its "bloody snout" is. The problem is a power elite that uses corporate and business entities to engage in the mercantilism that tears down nations and ruins the middle class. Concentrate on the "criminality" of Goldman Sachs (and other such entities) and lose sight of the forest for the trees. It is a dominant social theme in our opinion. Demonize the financial industry. Make people fear capitalism and the capital-raising process. And then suggest that certain failures need to be ameliorated by further regulations and the enlargement of government powers. Thus it is that the power elite's fear based memes are relentlessly flogged to concentrate further wealth and power. It's worked in the past, so the powers-that-be are trotting it out again with the help, of course, of a compliant press.'

'The power elite that organized the current Western monetary system was successful back in the 1930s in creating a narrative that blamed the financial industry (Wall Street, etc.) for the crash and subsequent Depression. As books like the Creature From Jekyll Island have shown us, it was the formation of a modern central bank, in tandem with modern regulatory democracy that caused the monetary failures that led to the Great Depression. It was inevitable that the elite would again try to shape the narrative of the modern money crisis, and in the largest sense, we think the Goldman lawsuit is part of the process. We are not necessarily implying, by the way, that the powers-that-be sat down in a conference room and decided to blame Goldman for everything. But just as the Western mercantilist money system itself eventually yields up chaos, so the system, with its farcical and dysfunctional regulatory apparatus, eventually yields up culprits. And it has been designed that way.'

'...there is something fabulously odd about a culture that depends on capitalism but that will not ever acknowledge it in the stories it tells itself about itself.'

'Max Keiser and co-host Stacy Herbert look at the scandals behind *rigged market capitalism* from intellectual property rights to cooked books. They also expose how "shenanigans" and "gimmicks" are the new words for fraud.'

'Ultimately, the idea that government can provide necessary services efficiently and at lower cost than the private sector must come under scrutiny. Absent competition, public enterprises will always degrade. Not only is the problem one of lack of competition, but also public services inevitably suffer from the "tragedy of the commons" - where public upkeep is neglected because no one fully takes ownership. This is especially troublesome in modern democracies where administrations come and go. Thus it is, everyone has responsibility for necessary infrastructure - and no one does, until it is too late. The solution in the recent past when it comes to crumbling public infrastructure has been to consider "privatization." But for governments merely to parcel out inefficient monopoly services to a "private" enterprise does not address the twin issues of lack of competition and the tragedy of the commons.'

''...capitalism is a dreadful tag. There we've said it! It was presented and defined by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital" and was meant to be derisive. The opposite of "bad" capitalism is "good" communism, of course. Why must we constantly be exposed to the spectacle of pro-free market individuals describing their sentiments using terminology invented by a determined enemy of the marketplace and the invisible hand? Free-markets of course are not particularly about money. They are about the ability of individuals to take individual, unfettered human action to build better lives for themselves, their families and their communities. -- It is not fashionable to note, but people, when they are not preoccupied with their own survival are often most charitable – and personally not institutionally. This is an aspect of the human condition that is all-too-often downplayed in modern life by state apologists who only emphasize human evil to raise up the meretricious mechanism of redistributionist smut.'

'Modern Capitalism: Advanced collection droids called the IRS(Invasive Rape Service)now patrol capitalist cities and outlying areas. These robotic rapists peer inside a civilian's house during the late hours of the night, to detect an income of less than $100,000 a year. If such is detected, the IRS agent breaks in and then ransacks the place. Once all of the victim's possessions have been stolen, eaten, and digested into money, the robot begins raping the home owner, killing their soul with every robotic thrust. This metallic phallus is actually a "soul vacuum", which is used to suck up the rapee's soul for sale to Satan. Once their task has been completed, the IRS agent returns to it's masters (the Government and Capitalists) and cums a bounty of wet, green capital in a disgusting bukkake of horror, delighting in the reality that no one cares about you in any system, except Communism, and that life is really just a descent into a fresh hell every day.'

'Karl Marx✡ was a Jewish conspirator whose conspiracy has been causing Lulz since he started writing. ...he decided to troll the shit out of the Europeans and subsequently the rest of the world, forging up a lulzful joke called Communism. Marx's communist writings were a precursor to Dungeons & Dragons. Unlike D&D, Marx only allowed for two classes, "proletariat" and "bourgeoisie", and players could not choose which class they started out as. Dungeons & Dragons dropped these two classes and replaced them with better, more interesting ones; however, much of the fantasy atmosphere was carried on from Marx's original writings. Marx's philosophy was ridiculed to no end, so he ultimately moved from city to city throughout Europe, believing himself to be "misunderstood". Communism is heralded as teh best philosophy evar by leftards, and the terminally lazy.'

'The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The author divides the entrepreneurs into two groups #Market Entrepreneurs and #Political Entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U.S. as a major economic power. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products.'

'...when talking to leftists about capitalism, their idea and my idea of what capitalism is are completely different. I usually try to point out that the system that we're practicing is actually mercantilism, but I think that's a losing battle since most people don't really know what mercantilism is. However, people on the left tend to be familiar with the term corporatism... What I disagree with the left about is government's role in eliminating corporatism: leftists tend to see government as a solution to corporatism and corporations as the cause, whereas I see government as the cause and corporations as a symptom. -- ...the biggest cause of the problems is that we're trying to rescue the word "capitalism" from the legacy of Karl Marx... The best solution may be to avoid the use of the word "capitalism" entirely because it's so confusing. "Free markets" is probably the best term for what I want and "corporatism" seems like an excellent name for what the left views as "capitalism."'

Gisted -- Leftists won't talk about the true nature of power disparity in society which is first of all parenting, second teaching, third universities, and way down the list after the government agencies, the taxation, the military, the police, and all of the vast apparatus of State power, is the "evil" capitalist who survives only by the grace of people's voluntary interactions and so has no 'power' and can't fight back—which is precisely why cowardly leftists like to pick on them. -- But the power disparity that exists within the classroom where you can't argue, can't question, and where you absolutely can't think for yourself... By the time the child hits puberty the true self is so buried under accumulated years of neglect, indifference, humiliation, punishment, scorn, and boredom, that the personality is left completely undeveloped and all you have in its place is this vain, useless, petty false self that has been grown like an evil weed in an untended garden.

'Doing so calls attention to the freedom movement’s radical roots, emphasizes the value of understanding society as an alternative to the state, underscores the fact that proponents of freedom object to non-aggressive as well as aggressive restraints on liberty, ensures that advocates of freedom aren’t confused with people who use market rhetoric to prop up an unjust status quo, and expresses solidarity between defenders of freed markets and workers — as well as ordinary people around the world who use “capitalism” as a short-hand label for the world-system that constrains their freedom and stunts their lives. Freed-market advocates should embrace “anti-capitalism” in order to encapsulate and highlight their full-blown commitment to freedom and their rejection of phony alternatives that use talk of freedom to conceal acquiescence in exclusion, subordination, and deprivation.' -- Nah. Be FOR something. Being against something is non-committal to an alternative and just leaves a void.

'We are a group of libertarians who understand that historically the word "capitalism" has meant, not the free market, but crony capitalism -- that is, collusion between business and State at the expense of consumers/workers. Thus we refuse to use the word "capitalism" to describe what we favor: individual liberty in all respects and free, competitive markets. We believe that what we have today IS capitalism -- and we oppose it.' -- PRICE-DISCOVERY <---> PRICE-FIXING