Comments on: Cleaned by Capitalism VII

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:09:00 +0000

Quote: “That one side of a simple market transaction is government in no way reduces the free market actions and spirit of the other side of the transaction.”

I think we are not in disagreement here.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:06:00 +0000

I am not sure I understand the thinking here.

If I decide I have a specific need, a need that can not be fulfilled by any market that I know of, I advertise my need and promise to buy the product that fulfills my need and even state an attractive reward to the supplier; and, an enterprising trader scours the world and finds what I desired, he brings it to me and I give him the promised payment; Is the enterprising trader then obligated to adopt my ideology, my character, and is he obligated to ask me where I got the funds with which to reward him?

That one side of a simple market transaction is government in no way reduces the free market actions and spirit of the other side of the transaction.

By: GregL

GregL — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:22:00 +0000

So, capitalism exists independendly of free markets?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:29:00 +0000

As long as we agree that tax payers’ money can be put to good use through this process, I have no qualms with the procedure. For a moment I thought I was on the blog of a principled libertarian, but if this is acceptable, I think I have a healthcare system to sell you, where a government subsidized insurance co-op (stress: *not* ‘government owned’ or ‘government run’!) insures citizens’ health care, while private medical practitioners can continue to compete for patients and the subsidies are paid for by taxes. I’m glad we all came together on this issue, finally.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:18:00 +0000

Prize offered, no guidelines, no oversight, no restrictions, and competition open to all. Private experimentation, private development, private success, and finally the reward.

Sounds like capitalism to me.

That the reward and request came from a government is immaterial to the process.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:30:00 +0000

So what you’re basically saying is that products that are government sponsored but developed by a non-government actor can now safely be called “brought to you by capitalism.” These definitions are getting more flexible every day…

By: Carl Pham

Carl Pham — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:49:00 +0000

Actually, the significance of the can is not that it preserves food. There are many other and older ways of doing so, typically drying and salting. The marvel of the can is that it can preserve food without drying — which ruins the texture of many things, and is expensive and wasteful to boot, and salting, which not every food can stand, tastewise, and which contributes to stomach cancer and other obnoxiousness.

By: Seth

Seth — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:38:00 +0000

I think it was more interesting that the government didn’t develop the idea. Perhaps, back then they better understood what Hayek wrote about later, that bottoms up experimentation produces better results. The government needed something to nourish their troops. They solved it through free market, not edict.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:49:00 +0000

Interesting that the link you provide places the origin of canning with a competition sponsored by the French government, and the can itself in a patent granted by royalty.