On Capitalism and Government Intervention

Here's my response to Professor Robert Jensen:

You have never lived under socialism or communism ever, and most of your thoughts are slightly hallucinative. I have lived both under socialism (in India) and communism (in the states of Kerala and West Bengal in India). Even a brief stay in those conditions rids one of any liking for either. But I am not a fanatical capitalist.  And I certainly am not a socialist or communist.

If capitalism uplifts everyone including the rich, very good. Otherwise some state intervention may not be all that bad if social unrest is to be avoided in the long run. West Bengal turned communist precisely for the reason that the then feudal society allowed the rich to go berserk. You had to live under the communist insurgencies of the late sixties and early seventies in Bengal to realise what happens when capitalism runs amock. Russia turned communist a long time ago for the same reason.

I agree that capital should bear the risk, and profits are rewards for bearing such risk. But do you really think capital bears the risk? What risks do Lockheed Martin or Grumman bear? What risks do Walmart or Haliburton  bear, with all the might of the government behind their back?

(look at all the costs incurred by our government to lobby on behalf of these companies abroad. Are you against those too?

 

If you are for a Hobbesian free-for-all capitalism, I am sure there are not many takers here on AECM or among the 99 per cent. 

I still have no problems states competing with each other to attract businesses. That is as American as apple pie. To forbid them not to compete is patently unAmerican.