ryanbryandyin wrote:Theoretically, it should be a marketplace where anyone with a great idea can get access to wealth (i.e. investor money) and use it to grow wealth for himself as well as his investors.
The problems emerge when human biases enter the picture. So instead of anyone, investors tend to favor, say, a Harvard grad. And getting into Harvard itself requires not just merit, but a modicum of stability and good schooling that the less privileged don't always have access to.
If I was going to explain the point of capitalism, I would say "putting resources where they will make the most new resources, and presuming the market is smarter than any specific people".
As contrast, we can then say it's not other things:
It's not socialism, because it doesn't always do the fairest thing, when an unfair thing can make the average better.
It's not mercantilism, because it's about creating wealth, not just accruing it. This is (in practice) the hardest distinction to make, since most competition is a blend of rent-seeking and added production.
It's not feudalism (the king owning everything, who leases to the nobles, who lease to the gentry, who lease to the commoners). Because even if profit is a motive, so is power. Also, there's no method to move control of the capital from those who have it to those who can make better use of it.
ucim wrote:Could you summarize?
Assuming the book with the same name is related, it's web-page http://www.themoneymasters.com/
indicates it's a summary of monetary policy and an explanation of the financial crisis with strong sympathy for the Austrian school of economics and has a conspiracy-theory narrative. (which to be fair, there definitely small groups of relatively unknown people making decisions that have enormous impact)
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.