Sure, if you're still here! There are some problems with capitalism:
* Market externalities. You can sell me a car and we'd both make out well; but we're externalizing the cost of pollution onto others. This isn't factored into the costs we pay. Each market transaction's externalities add up. A capitalist society would tend to destroy its own environment. (States try to respond with schemes like "Pigovian" taxes. [1] While anarcho-capitalists mention lawsuits. I mention anarcho-capitalism below.)
* Wage slavery. A feature of capitalist societies is the boss-worker relationship. You rent workers on a market, and command them. At least it's an improvement over chattel slavery, but that's not saying much. (Visit a store or restaurant. Are the people there afraid to speak freely when the manager is present?)
Does "pure" capitalism mean Murry Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism? (He wrote about things like private judicial systems. So, you'd hire a private army to keep me off your road.) I'll defer to Chomsky's claim since he thought about it more: "First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something." (http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html)
Also, advocates of pure markets tend to miss that countries like the US rely on state subsidy for its fundamental innovations. Countries don't do well sticking with their comparative advantages; the US would be stuck exporting fish and fur if it did. Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang both wrote about this. If you're in the mood for videos, here's: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp3Bw5H0VA) and (http://www.newamerica.net/events/2011/23_things)
Thank you, calibraxis, for your thoughts. I don't wish to repeat what I just wrote in reply to jholman, so let me just offer some diffs.
As regards what you call wage slavery, what you're describing is a contractual relationship. There is some kind of contract between the employer and the employee. Presumably, the employee made the choice to accept the job, and the job comes with terms and conditions. If the employee decides later on that s/he would prefer different conditions, they can negotiate for them or they can quit.
Again, my view is that people should be free to act in ways that they believe will serve them, so long as they are not violating the rights of others. I don't view employment as a kind of slavery, as long as both parties can walk away from the contract under agreed-upon conditions.
I'm not an advocate of anarcho-capitalism. I think the government has an absolutely necessary role to play in terms of protecting the rights of all individuals, equally, and based on objective law, and being the only entity that is authorized to initiate force against others.
* Market externalities. You can sell me a car and we'd both make out well; but we're externalizing the cost of pollution onto others. This isn't factored into the costs we pay. Each market transaction's externalities add up. A capitalist society would tend to destroy its own environment. (States try to respond with schemes like "Pigovian" taxes. [1] While anarcho-capitalists mention lawsuits. I mention anarcho-capitalism below.)
* Wage slavery. A feature of capitalist societies is the boss-worker relationship. You rent workers on a market, and command them. At least it's an improvement over chattel slavery, but that's not saying much. (Visit a store or restaurant. Are the people there afraid to speak freely when the manager is present?)
Does "pure" capitalism mean Murry Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism? (He wrote about things like private judicial systems. So, you'd hire a private army to keep me off your road.) I'll defer to Chomsky's claim since he thought about it more: "First of all, it couldn't function for a second—and if it could, all you'd want to do is get out, or commit suicide or something." (http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html)
Also, advocates of pure markets tend to miss that countries like the US rely on state subsidy for its fundamental innovations. Countries don't do well sticking with their comparative advantages; the US would be stuck exporting fish and fur if it did. Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang both wrote about this. If you're in the mood for videos, here's: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyp3Bw5H0VA) and (http://www.newamerica.net/events/2011/23_things)
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax#Criticisms