Sunday, November 29, 2020

Capitalists as a Class Reduce Profits and Raise Wages

If capitalists did not exist, profits would equal 100% of sales revenue and an infinite percentage of zero capital invested. For proof, see my CAPITALISM: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, available in hardcover, 2-volume paperback, and Kindle editions at

Contrary to Adam Smith and Karl Marx, capitalists do not create the phenomenon of profit, which exists prior to their existence, but rather the phenomenon of PRODUCTIVE EXPENDITURE (i.e., expenditure for the purpose of making subsequent sales).

Productive expenditure consists of wage payments and expenditure for capital goods, both of which show up as costs of production that must be deducted from sales revenues and as capital invested in business assets.

The more economically capitalistic the economic system, i.e., the more the buying for the sake of selling relative to sales, the lower is profit both as a percentage of sales and as a percentage of capital invested, while the higher are wages.

Capitalists as a class do not create profits but wages. They increase wages both relative to sales revenues and profits and absolutely in terms of wage earners’ standard of living.

Again, for proof, read my CAPITALISM: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, available in hardcover, 2-volume paperback, and Kindle editions at

Tuesday, November 24, 2020

Competition and Cooperation

Competition and cooperation are often described as opposites, with cooperation favored as “social” and competition scorned as “anti-social.” This contrast is made in utter ignorance of economics.

The economic system of a capitalist society is a system of division-of-labor. In this system, each individual devotes his labor to the production of goods and services that are consumed by others, while what he consumes is produced by others.

This represents voluntary social cooperation of the most intensive and extensive kind imaginable—a cooperation of hundreds of millions, indeed, of billions of people all across the world in serving one another’s needs and wants.

Economic competition is nothing other than the process of organizing this social cooperation. It determines which individuals produce which goods, by what methods, and to what extent.

For a complete elaboration of the nature and effects of economic competition, see my CAPITALISM: A TREATISE ON ECONOMICS, available in hardcover, 2-volume paperback, and Kindle editions at

There you can learn, for example, why there is room for all in the competition of capitalism, how people of lesser ability are enabled to outcompete people of greater ability, and how its effects are the opposite of competition in the animal kingdom.

Monday, November 23, 2020

A Hypothesis Concerning Biden and the Election

Having succeeded with 100s of law suits to change state election laws and thereby make it easier to fix the outcome, Biden’s camp was so confident in the fix, that it concluded that all it needed to do was keep him alive until election day.

Hence virtually no campaigning by Biden, thereby avoiding the risk of putting his problem of age on display.

Expect Biden to last beyond inauguration day. But sometime thereafter, perhaps within two years or less, don’t be surprised if Biden is succeeded by Harris. 

Saturday, November 14, 2020

A Couple of Badly Needed Facts

Can anyone provide “authoritative” projections of the rise in sea level as of 2100, 2200, …, 3000 and of the number of square miles of land century by century that would allegedly be lost to the rising sea and/or to rising temperatures on land?

Can anyone provide reliable calculations of the number of lives that would be lost as the direct or indirect result of each 10% reduction in the production of power dependent on fossil fuels or atomic energy?

Please do not give a vague reference, such as “see the reports of the IPCC.” What’s needed is specific references to specific pages in specific documents and best of all the assemblage of the data, fully referenced, in a simple table.

Thursday, November 12, 2020

Our World Is Becoming That of 1984

As I see our world morphing more and more into Orwell's world of 1984, with a growing inversion of truth and falsehood, I think the time has come to apply to it the language of “1984.”

Thus, at least from time to time, we should refer to the media as branches of “The Ministry of Truth” and to President Trump as “Emmanuel Goldstein,” the arch-villain enemy of the [deep] state as depicted in 1984.

Indeed, Trump has been the victim of so many “Two-Minute Hates” that they blend into one intense, unending hatred 24/7/365.

And let us not forget “The Ministry of Love,” which AOC and other haters are attempting to forge in their efforts to ruin the lives of Trump supporters.

A statement from the Ministry of Truth claiming the honesty and fairness of the election appears at Be sure to read it if you’re ready to believe that the dead can vote and that preventing Republican observers from observing is fair and honest.

Wednesday, November 11, 2020

Why the “Right” Should Not Actually Behave Like the “Left” Even “a Little Bit”

Some people have objected to my tweet-thread/blogpost of Nov. 6 in the belief that it supports illegal action and a violation of private property rights.

Actually, it does not, nor did I intend it to advocate illegal action. The blog's title and the question it asks is, “What If the ‘Right’ Behaved a Bit Like the ‘Left’?” It does not say that the “Right” actually should behave that way. 

Speaking out or protesting against the lies and distortions of the media is justified. Exposing their complicity with government corruption is justified. But violating their property rights is not.

That could only be the case under a condition of armed resistance to the government, assuming the media were acting as government agents. Since we are not at the point of armed resistance, we are not at a point where disobeying the laws is justified.

Moreover, even if such disobedience were justified, given the Left’s near-total control over the media, such action would almost certainly backfire, for it would be portrayed not as a response to outrages but as unprovoked aggression. 

As long as we still have the ability to speak and write freely, our best course of action against the left-wing media is to counter them with a free-market alternative.

Some of these alternatives do exist. For example, Parler is becoming an alternative to Twitter. Please see my November 1 tweet-thread/blogpost for an elaboration of this free-market strategy.

Friday, November 06, 2020

What If the "Right" Behaved a Bit Like the "Left"

Imagine that the “Right” behaved a bit like the “Left.” Not that it would smash store windows or loot businesses, but just express itself in strong, justified protest.

What would it be doing right now, based on its belief that the election was being stolen from it, not only by the illegal manufacture of massive numbers of ballots for Biden, but also in good part because of a deliberate news blackout about the alleged corruption of Biden?

Would it not perhaps temporarily occupy and trash the offices of such publications as the NY Times and Washington Post, and the offices of such outfits as CNN, MSNBC, and Twitter and Facebook, who did everything possible to keep that news from their members?

What about the offices of corrupt mayors in jurisdictions where the vote manufacturing has taken place?

Would such behavior constitute a violation of private property rights? Or would it be an act of just and relatively modest retaliation against those who’ve violated the right to a free and honest election, which right is an essential check against arbitrary government?

Would such militant protest be helpful or harmful to the cause of freedom? Would it be an exercise in futility or, worse, self-destruction, or would it be an action similar in character to the Boston Tea Party?

Sunday, November 01, 2020

A Possible Free-Market Way of Counteracting the Leftwing Bias of Today’s Internet Tech Companies

Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others are frequently guilty of leftwing bias in their treatment of comments, internet searches, and publication of content in general, for which behavior they are frequently denounced as guilty of “censorship.”

Actually, while private individuals and companies can do intellectually detestable things, they cannot commit censorship. Censorship is possible only when a writer or speaker has the agreement of the owner of a publishing venue to present his ideas.

If he has that agreement and is stopped from presenting his ideas by the government, or by private individuals acting with the sanction of the government, such as disrupters whom the police refuse to arrest preventing him from being heard, then there is censorship.

To make the same point in different words, if the detestable New York Times refuses of publish me, or even acknowledge my existence, that is not censorship. Censorship exists if they were willing to publish me but were stopped by the government or a government-sanctioned gang.

The way to deal with Twitter et al. is by means of one or more counter websites that are willing to publish what Twitter et al. hide. This would both deprive them of any ability to block content and also seriously tarnish their reputations if they did not change their behavior.

There are many concrete problems that would need to be worked out in launching such a website. But here’s a possible name and a slogan for one such site: “Can’t find what you’re looking for in Google? Try ‘Second Search.’ We feature what Google hides.”

The problems in starting such a website are numerous and large. But they do not include having to compete across the board with the leftist sites. The area of competition is only where the leftist sites are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

And then it is essentially just a matter of showing what they’ve tried to hide.

For books and essays by the author, see