Essays

The Wonders of Capitalism

by David Sims

HERE ARE SOME illustrations of the behavior you can expect from capitalists.

Scotland’s Tay Bridge was built in 1879, becoming, for a time, the world’s longest railway bridge. On 28 December 1879, storm winds blew part of the bridge into the sea at exactly the moment a passenger train was going across. The train fell into the water, killing 60 passengers and 15 crew.

But it wasn’t just the storm that caused the bridge to collapse. The contractors who built it cut their costs by using worn-out girders. The defects on the girders had been concealed by a paste made from mixing beeswax and iron filings.

Despite all of the people on the train being killed, the train itself was recovered from the sea and expertly repaired, and the capitalists continued to operate it for their profit for another 40 years.

The MGM casino in Las Vegas caught on fire starting in its delicatessen, which got out of control because an exception had been made to the building code regarding sprinklers in that part of the casino, as required by the building code there. The capitalists argued that it was safe to allow the exception because the deli would be open 24/7 and any fire there would be quickly put out.

Shortly after the casino opened, however, the capitalists changed their minds about the deli’s business hours, and a fire started there while it was closed. The flames went “whoosh” when the deli fire ignited the combustible furniture in the casino and the flammable glue in the ceiling. Smoke rose up elevator shafts, stairwells, and ventilation ducts and smothered to death hundreds of people trapped on the upper floors.

Why were they trapped? Because the capitalists decided to lock the stairwells “for security purposes.” They didn’t want any of their guests to sneak into the casino and steal anything while the building was on fire, I suppose.

The Ford Pinto, notorious for being subject to ruptures of its fuel tank during rear-end collisions, was originally designed to include an inner lining that could keep the fuel contained even if the external metal tank was broken or punctured. This would have made the Pinto the world’s safest small car. But the capitalists at Ford Motor Company decided to eliminate the internal lining in order to shave a few dollars off their costs, and, as the result, the Pinto was one of the most dangerous small cars ever made.

When capitalists build dams, they usually aim for a structural life expectancy of only 50 years. During that 50 years, a town usually grows up in the dam’s flood plain. If the dam fails, as it did near Johnstown, Pennsylvania, on 31 May 1889, the whole town will get washed away and nearly everybody in it will die. Meanwhile, the capitalists have been building other dams, also calculated to last 50 years — because building them better, so that they can last longer, would be more expensive and would reduce their profits. So eventually the whole country is full of dams that could fail more or less at any time. The government has to prioritize according to its best guess of which dams will fail first, and sooner or later they just can’t keep up.

In 1972, dam failures occurred at Buffalo Creek Valley, WV (125 people killed) and at Rapid City, SD (237 people killed), both times due merely to heavy rain. In 1976, the Teton Dam at Idaho Falls, ID failed the first time it was filled with water. In 1977, a dam failed near Toccoa Falls, GA (39 people killed).

Today, in the United States, there are more than 10,000 dams classified as “high hazard,” meaning that their failure would result in lots of dead people.

But think of the money that was saved.

* * *

Source: Author

For Further Reading

Previous post

Darwin in America

Next post

France: Jews Control "Muslim" Organizations

7 Comments

  1. Nigel
    January 8, 2017 at 6:05 pm — Reply

    Nice documentation effort! Cheers!

  2. January 8, 2017 at 9:30 pm — Reply

    Anyone writing for a site like this should know what real capitalism is, and it’s suspect that such a site, that carries the name and reputation of William Piece, would even allow an article with an obvious socialist slant to be published.

    Just a clarification. The U.S. is NOT run by capitalism. Capitalism is simply supply and demand generated by a FREE market, fueled by the natural dynamic between consumer action and business production. For well over 100 years, the U.S. has been run by CORPORATISM, which is governments colluding with international corporations to eliminate competition and consolidate power and profits into fewer hands. If they can do that by instituting corporate welfare, easing restrictions for certain corporate entities or looking the other way while they violate existing laws, then so be it. Under corporatism, there is no such thing as a free market. Market “interventions” are made via manipulators like the Federal Reserve to further the aforementioned goal.
    It’s a tragedy so many people never learned about capitalism in school. It’s because of this lack of knowledge that they believe the mass media memes that capitalism is the scourge of our society and will beg for full on socialism as the “answer” when corporatism collapses, thinking capitalism was at fault the whole time. God help us.

    • January 9, 2017 at 2:39 am — Reply

      Hi, Bell. We value your comments; they are intelligent and thought-provoking. But I am compelled to disagree on a few points here.

      First, I understand the difference between what you call corporatism and what you call capitalism, and I deplore the former and see the creative power of the latter just as much you do.

      However, I don’t think your terms are optimal. The best term for what you call corporatism is definitely capitalism, I think. This is because, in large part, what we suffer from is the 1) the tendency of the owners of large amounts of capital to have a much easier time influencing government and accumulating more capital than anyone else; and 2) the tendency of society under such conditi0ns to make such capital-accumulation its overriding purpose; and 3) the ability of Jews and their allies to create capital out of thin air under the system established by 1) and 2) and the Jews’ ancient money-lending frauds.

      Calling it corporatism is confusing because there is already a pre-existing legitimate use of that term: the legislative structure of Italian Fascism used it, as did some of Fascism’s derivative and root ideologies, and it had nothing to do with business corporations, but rather described a system under which each basic class of society had its own representatives in the government. (Some people, out of ignorance of the real meaning of the term, sometimes take Mussolini’s quotes on the subject wildly out of context in otherwise well-intentioned efforts to criticize capitalism.) Better to avoid such confusion.

      What you call capitalism should probably simply be called a free, unplanned economy. It is more of an ideal than a reality, since Nature, and human nature, seem to always require modifications of it to ensure social unity and avoid predation of the clever upon the credulous. But in high-trust societies populated by individuals of homogeneous race, high intelligence, and generally good character, it unleashes productivity and creativity that are impossible to deny.

      (Even early America had a socialized justice system, for example — at least the prosecution and court side was socialized, anyway!)

      William Pierce, with whom I worked on an almost daily basis for two decades, hated pettifogging interference in people’s lives and was an instinctive libertarian — a real freedom-lover. But he also believed it was the responsibility of individuals — and the state — to do what is best for the race. Hence certain areas are legitimate venues for central state action, the most important of these being preventing any individual or organization from engaging in activity which harms the race. His views on this are scattered throughout his writings and are not hard to find. You might want to start here:

      https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/11/in-defense-of-hitler-and-his-national-socialism-2/

      With every good wish,

      Kevin.

      • January 9, 2017 at 8:47 pm — Reply

        Kevin, thanks for your thoughtful response.

        I feel, however, that you’ve put the cart before the horse in this case. You say in a capitalist system the Jews’ ability to create money out of thin air (point #3) arises out of the system established by (point #1), “…the tendency of the owners of large amounts of capital to have a much easier time influencing government and accumulating more capital than anyone else,” when in fact, the opposite is true. It’s precisely because Jews created the ability to print currency out of thin air that they have more money than anyone else, which then gives them the power to easily influence government, and not the other way around.

        I would also propose to point #2 that the tendency of people to make money their god or over-riding purpose doesn’t come from the capitalist system at all, but the Jewish controlled media that constantly brainwashes people into associating their self-worth with their net worth via TV, film and advertising. This cultivates an insecurity that compels them to “keep up with the Jones’s” when it comes to physical possessions, money and of course, debt.

        While I still feel corporatism is the best title for the current system we have in place, I don’t mind what we call it, as long as it’s not capitalism, because it isn’t. If we’re merely disagreeing on a label, then that’s fine. I feel what’s most important is for people to realize that the system we have now is not the system we had 100+ years ago, and certainly during some of the most prosperous times in our history. My fear is that mistaking capitalism for corporatism will create an unconscious reflexive reaction among the unthinking masses to embrace socialism, which would be a disaster.

        What I call capitalism is indeed the free market economy that Adam Smith championed. It’s capitalistic because capital rules—the dollar rules based on how and where consumers spend it, not special interests, lobbyists, market interventionists, government collusion or anything else.

        You said nature and human nature require “modifications” to “ensure social unity and avoid predation of the clever on the credulous.” Nature makes no modifications because it needs social unity or anything else. Nature works because nature just is. Mankind would do well to learn from the animal world and the rest of nature in order to solve many of its problems, most of which only require a hands-off policy, especially with regard to the economy. Does nature make special efforts to protect certain animals from the predation of others? I don’t think so. Suggesting that we need some kind of regulation in place for our “protection, convenience or safety” is always the first step government takes toward the erosion of liberties, privacy, and so on. It’s been said that a tyranny established for “our own good” is the worst kind of tyranny because it’s a tyranny without limits.

        As you say, in a high-trust, high intelligence, homogeneous society where predation and usury are minuscule if not non-existant, a true free market economy unleashes productivity and creativity on a scale rarely seen. In fact, Zionist and rabidly anti-White Jewish Harvard Professor, Noel Ignatiev, is on record admitting that, “…capitalism is the only system that puts the largest amount of money into the most hands in the shortest amount of time…” and to paraphrase the rest of his statement, that’s why destroying capitalism is crucial to destroying the White world. So perhaps we don’t really have a financial problem as much as we do a racial problem, wherein if we had homogeneous nations, we probably wouldn’t even be discussing these kinds of money troubles, and I think that’s where you and I agree.

        As a side note: Yes, early American settlers in the colonies and at Plymouth experimented with socialist/communist community structures, that is until they nearly all starved to death. It was William Bradford who saved their lives by instituting the concept of private property ownership, the central pillar of a free market economy and what I call capitalism.

  3. Anthony Collins
    January 9, 2017 at 4:34 am — Reply

    In a recent comment, I reproduced Paul Sears’ review of Garrett Hardin’s Promethean Ethics, which included this line: “Arthur Morgan, one time head of the Tennessee Valley Authority and president of Antioch College, urged and exemplified the importance of ‘conclusive engineering analysis’; by this he meant that the engineer’s responsibility does not end with design, but must include the analysis of consequences so far as possible.” I think David Sims clearly recognizes the need for “the analysis of consequences so far as possible” — a skill and practice that is vital for perceiving, defining, and addressing the challenges before us.

    What we have today is a system in which irresponsibility has been “baked into the cake,” being encouraged and rewarded while responsibility is discouraged and penalized. Sometimes only a catastrophe will reform such a system.

    By coincidence, I recently learned of Sustainability and the Art of Long-Term Thinking, a book by Bernd Klauer, Reiner Manstetten, Thomas Petersen, and Johannes Schiller that apparently addresses the challenge of effectively extending time horizons and understanding complexity. I’ll have to follow it up.

  4. Marc
    January 13, 2017 at 1:39 pm — Reply

    The capitalist’s philosophy is : “Long live Money! Everything is money! Nothing exists outside Money!” It is profoundly NIHILISTIC in its outlook on Life itself. I’m pretty sure that the “father” of “laissez-faire Capitalism”, Adam Smith, was almost certainly a member of the “Tribe”, or at least a “shabbos goy” freemason. Freemasonry, as everyone knows, is basically a world front for jewish supremacism.

  5. February 20, 2017 at 5:39 pm — Reply

    http://www.ilprimatonazionale.it/cultura/idndagine-liberalismo-economia-ricardo-57457/

    Indagine sul Liberalismo/3 La finta scienza dell’economia
    9
    SHARES
    Aggiunto da Redazione il 12 febbraio 2017.
    Terza puntata della nostra indagine sul liberalismo
    Le puntate precedenti:

    Indagine sul liberalismo/1 Il rifiuto della politica
    Indagine sul liberalismo/2 La dissoluzione delle società e delle identità
    image: http://i1.wp.com/www.ilprimatonazionale.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/davidricardo-liberalismo-227×300.jpg?fit=227%2C300

    liberalismo ricardoRoma, 12 feb – Se esiste un modo empirico per valutare al primo impatto l’intelligenza di un interlocutore, probabilmente è quello di parlare di economia. Se in un qualsivoglia contesto egli pronuncia la parola “liberismo”, allora nel 99% dei casi è un sinistro radicale, di quelli cioè che sentono la necessità di distinguere il liberalismo economico (che sarebbe il male assoluto, appena dietro al fascismo ovviamente) dal liberalismo politico e culturale (che invece è una gran bella cosa). Ovviamente, il liberalismo è una ideologia di per se olistica esattamente come il suo fratellino marxista, che informa l’intera realtà sociale ad una visione del mondo ben precisa, che ovviamente coincide con quella dei ceti mercantili e finanziari che in Inghilterra si sono andati emancipandosi dal vecchio ordine feudale ed hanno plasmato il mondo intero a propria immagine e somiglianza.

    Read more at http://www.ilprimatonazionale.it/cultura/idndagine-liberalismo-economia-ricardo-57457/#CoSyEfR8rhS2Pmim.99

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.