First and foremost, I defend capitalism as the only moral political system. I’m defending it on grounds of principal, saying that any and every other political system (period) is immoral – including our own mixed economies by the way. Our discussion here doesn’t even touch on philosophy, only eceonomics.

And second is my belief that capitalism is the only system capable of making a real dent in poverty. You mention Africa. But Africa is the poster-child of what capitalism is not: interventionist, powerful, corrupt governments that deny freedom to the citizens in its charge. In true capitalist societies, Jon, the government is small and unable to intervene. (By the way, protectionist economic policies are prevalent everywhere there is capitalism. Airbus, for example, is heavily subsidised by the British, French and German governments.)

But my central response to you is this. I just don’t believe, Jon, that the facts support your view that capitalism serves only a limited few within the nations that embrace it. Have you studied pre-capitalist West Germany, and observed the effects of capitalism upon it since? Or, since we’re talking about its effect on poverty, can you point me to any countries without the tradition of capitalism that have less poverty per capita than the (reasonably capitalist) United States? China? Cuba? What about a country that would have absolutely no excuse not to be rich, a country with valuable national resources like Saudi Arabia?

Under a capitalist system, there are more jobs, there is more money, and there are more opportunities to create wealth. Poor people in capitalist countries are already in a much better position than people in non-capitalist countries, and they wouldn’t swap places with a North Korean, for example. What exactly explains the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who flood into the United States through the U.S. border from Mexico every year? It’s clear that the effects of capitalism have a universal effect upon anyone in a capitalist nation, not just a limited effect – otherwise there would be no benefit to them in coming!

What explains the wealth of the United States, a nation founded upon largely capitalist principals, compared with the relatively poor majority of the citizens of South America? Answer: capitalism. There are well-understood reasons for why this is the case.. Economics 101 teaches that if you allow people equal rights and equal protection from theft (including that from government) and honour their freedom to live as they please, they will go create wealth voluntarily. And if McDonald’s had never existed, Jon, then its thousands of employees would not have their jobs. Are you still trying to tell me that capitalism is only serving a limited few?

Capitalism is as perfect a system as it gets. There isn’t a better system morally, and there isn’t a better system in practice. Our mixed economies are proof of that: every time taxes are cut, our economy does better. It amazes me that people still try to claim that this is not the case.

Would that we HAD “unfettered capitalism”, Jon.

My point was that raw capitalism doesn’t lift ‘nations’ out of poverty. It serves limited sections of a limited number of countries very well indeed.

Do I know all the answers? No. I don’t claim to – but I can see when something isn’t working.

You’ll agree that capitalism is BY FAR the dominant economic system in the world. There are very few countries with the sort of protectionist economic policies that control pure market forces to any real degree (the USA being one of the prime ones, of course. Oh the irony.) This gives us some sort of chance to evaluate how the system is working so far.

To answer your question – capitalist countries that have low standards of living – actually countries would take ages, so lets just say 90% plus of the people of Africa.

It infuriates me that because a system serves you in your own particular situation well, you slavishly adhere to the notion that unbridled expansion of that system will eventually serve everyone well. How long is that meant to take exactly?

It isn’t hard, John. But understand that saying ‘unfettered capitalism isn’t working for the majority of the world’s population’ is not the same as saying that socialism is the answer.

While I’d love to be able to say I know the solution, not being able to do so doesn’t mean automatic acceptance of the current dominant system as the best available.

Tell me what the general living standard was for the people who today live in the United States of America, before the nation was built and established through years of capitalist principal? In fact, let’s make this easy. Show me a capitalist nation that has a low standard of living. Then, please, show me a non-capitalist country that has as high a standard of living as a capitalist one. This isn’t hard, Jon.

I’m sorry. Maybe it’s clumsy juxtaposition on your part – but are you suggesting that the American nation has been ‘lifted out of poverty’ by capitalism?

No ‘nation’ has ever been ‘lifted out of poverty.’ No ‘nation’ has ever come close, capitalist or otherwise. (And no, I’m not suggesting a left-wing alternative would do better.)

To cite the performance of the stock market as an indicator of poverty is one of the more vapid things on this blog, and that’s saying something.

I know you have a kind of reverse snobbery about ‘the left-liberal academic community’ and the standards required by academia to explain or justify a thesis – but those standards exist to ensure people don’t state opinion as fact.

Jon- Thanks for the comment. I don’t need any help to be taken seriously – the reason most of my readers are here is that they enjoy the somewhat irreverent style of this otherwise very reasonable blog. And I wasn’t calling all Europeans morons, I was identifying some European morons.

Thanks all!

I’m also interested in your views on democracy. It would be easy to take from your posts that democracy might be anathema to your peculiar form of libertarianism, given that the majority end up making decisions for individuals.

Of course this is only important from your point of view when the side you support loses, but hey, who am I to criticise?