johnnygoging: science, education, not capitalism, is what rose billions of humans out of poverty. and indeed, we're already kind of blurring things, because, without that science and education, those billions would not exist. The last couple hundred years have been different thanks to the men of science, not the men of capitalism. Capitalism has been doing the same thing for so many thousands of years.
I said myself that capitalism fueled innovation. And I was very explicit about the time period, so you are the one blurring things. The Enlightenment certainly came about centuries ago, and the associated scientific revolution was necessary - but not sufficient - for the improvements in living conditions that got globalized recently.
To say capitalism is millenia old is ridiculous. Banking / lending in some form is old indeed. But finance =/= capitalism. Now I also mentioned globalization, not just capitalism, and you seem to have elided that. The 50 year timescale of India and China, etc getting huge economic growth is mainly due to globalization. The Western World getting huge economic growth from industrialization is what is more directly caused by capitalism. Earlier Renaissance capitalism was incipient, and due to the dynamics of government heading towards absolutism in parallel with the enlightenment it took another century or so for the kind of liberalization that defines modern capitalism.
This is all pretty much established so I have no idea what you are trying to get at. Or rather, it seems liek the usual capitalism = greed propaganda.
richlind33: Where did you get this load of hooey from? It's common knowledge that the Rothschilds made great fortunes from leveraging rulers and influential people, and financing wars. That isn't even arguable. Furthermore, capitalism and centralized banking are in diametrical opposition to each other, and obviously so, as capitalism calls for the *decentralization* of economic authority.
You, sir, are a buffoon.
Thanks for resorting to personal insult so quickly. Makes it easier for me to say I had indeed already noticed your nationalist tendencies, and that you were likely what I call the Russia Today audience.
For the readers' benefit, I will point out:
1 - that the dynamic I presented is not incompatible with the one you are pointing out. However in the broad historical perspective the power of guns always ends on top. You need only look at 20th century history to realize this is still true in modern times, despite the common attempt you exemplify to cherry pick exceptional examples and assert them as being the universal truth.
2 - that you are the one conflating capitalism and centralized banking, and if you were to reread what I wrote you would find no such conflation. I hope you will at least feel some shame - and believe me - when I tell you that of course I agree that capitalism is fundamentally a decentralization of economic authority. To be more precise, it is a dis-intermediation, where the power of capital gets somewhat disconnected from state power at least for transactional activities / investments. How we get from there - if we get from there - to fully democratic economies where the monetary controls likewise get removed from national powers is uncharted territory though.
3 - that you are trying to have your cake, and eat it. It's pretty rich of you to now get on this horse of capitalism == democractic decentralization and strawman me as being implicitly on the side of elite oligarchies, when a while ago you were asking for capital controls due to economic war. You can have national control of the economy or people control of the economy. Choose.
PS: Kindly evangelize on the democratic and moral underpinnings of capitalism and how it differs from centralized banking with the previous poster I replied to. I can assure you being the pro capitalist voice in these fora is mostly lonely, and despite your nationalist sympathies and rudeness I'll appreciate the help - for the common good. :P