If the investor invested in the typewriters, we know in hindsight
that the money would have essentially been thrown down the drain
with a net loss to society compared to the investment in portable
computers. The decision to invest is not made blindly by
investors. They do due diligence and provide a lot of intellectual
firepower to investments decisions. The investor is an integral
part of the process of determining the allocation of capital.
David Shemano
Reluctant as I am to discuss things with a libertarian, it seems
appropriate to mention that capitalism is very much up to the task of
matching investor funds to investment. I say that as somebody who
worked for Goldman-Sachs and Salomon Brothers. We had computer
systems that could make this process breathtakingly fast and accurate.
The real problem is disincentives to invest. What do you do when
there is no incentive to invest, such as was the case during the
1930s? Granted, the post-WWII economy has made such problems appear a
thing of the past--at least for the USA, Western Europe and Japan
(and more lately the coast of China, parts of India and in places
like Thailand--even if fitfully so.)
But what are you supposed to do if you are in Africa? The only
investments that are possible are those that are dictated by social
need rather than private profit. But to create a state that
challenges private profit is to risk coups or invasion, as Burkina
Faso and Angola demonstrate.
If the rest of the world would be allowed to invest on the basis of
social need rather than private profit, it would eventually create a
powerful dynamic against capitalism. If the capitalist class would
simply accept this in good libertarian fashion as freedom of choice,
then everything would be fine and dandy. However, they have shown
over and over again that they do not respect individual choice and
want to force their philosophy on the rest of the world. That is why
they have to be flushed down the toilet.
--
www.marxmail.org
