Many of the complaints against capitalism are based on a false premise, that life is a zero sum game. Capitalism's greatest strength is that it makes a plus sum game possible. Capitalism makes the pie bigger while Socialism divides the pie into ever smaller pieces. This is because capitalism taps into resources that that the collectivists simply do not comprehend and do not believe exist.

It is because of inventions (cars, airplanes, MRI machines, Genetic testing, etc). The historical record shows that inventing only occurs at a "rapid" rate when property rights for inventions are legally protected. Inventions are how we increase are wealth.

One of the interesting things that falls out from this is that 3rd world countries with lower economic freedom scores can grow faster (initially) than 1st world countries with higher economic freedom scores, because all they need to do is import ( or copy) technologies from 1st world countries.

didn´t understand your answer, sorry mate

What you're seeing, that is, reading here is simply "Head Games"---The Game of Words. Typical of Liberal, 19th century European philosophy.

In the context of an economic system, the statement “survival of the fittest” presupposes a zero sum which is a situation in game theory in which one person’s gain is equivalent to another’s loss, so the net change in wealth is zero. That is not how free enterprise (capitalism) works.

In my experience, those who make the “survival of the fittest” statement have no understanding of either evolution or free market economics.

"The wealthier the country the less competition (producing/selling essentially the same products)."

Do you think that is a result of specialization, the gradual consolidation which tends to happen in mature industries, or some other factor like favoritism in legal treatment? Or a combination of all of the above?

Unfortunately, competition is a poorly defined term in economics. But the closer you get to pure and perfect competition, the less invention, the less wealth created. Competition is never the goal nor does it produce wealth in an of itself. See the example of the 100 Meter dash.

The phrase I often hear when talking economics and proposing Capitalism is, "Oh, that's dog eat dog." The other day, I replied before I thought about it, "That's if you either have a rabid dog or a pit bull." The problem with that response is that ir's taken to be humor. I sure as hell, didn't mean it that way. The more I though about it the better I liked it. As to gladiators, take away the slaughter and what you have is a mixed martial arts fight in the octagon. The winner trained hard, knew his/her opponent, used brains as well as brawn and won. What is wrong with that? Who do you want to put your money on? We can watch or we can get into the arena. Capitalism works the same way. It fosters the hardest working, smartest-in-the-field, and creates winners. Even losers have the opportunity to "pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and start all over again." Which was a popular song lyric of the depression era. An attitude we can certainly use again with our young adults.

Thanks. The wealthier the country the less competition (producing/selling essentially the same products). On a per capita basis India has more people in competition than Singapore.

The shortest answer to that question - as implied in the article - is that Capitalism is not a "game."

Well written. Perhaps a better way to state the impact of competition is not in a Darwinistic manner, but that what is actually happening is that suppliers are competing for the opportunity to enter into a mutually-beneficial relationship with consumers. The competition is actually to see which relationship is the strongest for both partners - not merely one.

Again, a well-written article. Nicely done.

I don't see any problem. Capitalism IS survival of the fittest. In both capitalism and in nature, not being the fittest does not mean death. Those that are not as fit may find another niche that allows them to also thrive. Or they may strive harder, and end up deposing the "fittest".

Excellent statement!

There´s one catch though to this "vision". Or more than one, if I may.

For instance, where do you place a person that inherits a fortune, such as Ayn Rand´s view on the Starnsville Heirs as the worst case scenario?

Then you also have to take into account that if you´re born poor, you have to add the fact that the environment you´re in will have a tendency to exclude you from many opportunities; whereas if you´re born rich, alot of strings can be pulled and there is a much more favorable scenario, whether we consider contacts and powerful friends in this or not.

But, of course; this is just an opinion here; a point of view really. It is common to say that those that are well off will invest alot in their offspring´s education and earlier years; meanning that they shall have fundamental advantages and yet not all rich children understand or take advantage of this. There is what today we call "an emotional education" and well, that´s something that money can´t buy.

Anyway, I never really liked the term "social darwinism" to begin with; because I consider it to be a terrible metaphor that states that society is like a jungle. If that were so, we´re way off since human beings should be considered a pack, not lions and sheep.

I may confused here, but isn´t society supposed to be a conglomeration of different skills and trades in order to elevate the quality of life of it´s inhabitants, since there isn´t a single person that can be an expert in everything; nor is there enough time to do everything? And well, from there on comes the complex problem of economics; the domestic markets and the international ones, etc etc etc. It´s great to simplify of course, but this isn´t the Wild West,Manifest Destiny is only isn´t even apliable in the Space Race and well; we´re all different one way or another. Tolerance is key here; for if I can´t get along with my brother it´s not like I have a right to kill him or anything like that.

Sorry, this is just a point of view. I don´t mean to discredit capitalism, socialism, humanity or society here. I´m just rambling I guess...

What the creatures that think(less) this way do not get, is that honest competition is a challenge to one's one capabilities and it always benefits the end user of a product or service. It's not a vengeful or "I'm better than you" kind of thing; it's also an effort to stay in business which...wait, wait for it...is in one's "Rational self interest" to do so.

What we find often though, is those that are either crony connected or threatened take on the meme of "do what ever you have to in order to succeed"...Sound like Donald Trump? This meme or mindless set is less integrated and often harmful to the end user.
Those that complain and point fingers are the ones that create and perpetuate the problem.

That was a perfect example.

Win-win is a public victory that can only occur after we have broken through the private win-lose paradigm.
How can one hold life as their highest value while seeing all battles as fights to the death?

every fucking invention is a combination of known elements. We have said this to you countless times! why are you allowed in here?!

Thank You.

Very interesting.and good points

I decided to write this in part, because it plays on my point of equating inventions with evolution and because it is nonsense that America is great because of competition or that capitalism is about competition.

You cannot agree to disagree on logic.

Just added your book to my kindle. Thanks for telling me about it and sharing your knowledge.