Evidence for this? Capitalism allowed me to develop and use my talents for the benefit of my family, my employees, and those who see support from charitable contributions. So much for 'greed'....
Not true. A true capitalist knows that a homeless employee is not very productive. A true capitalist knows that someone too poor to buy food is too poor to buy the latest electronic gizmo, the latest fashion in shoes, or take a trip to some far off place. Capitalism is the freedom to keep what's yours, to choose your own path, and to do business with whom you please. Capitalism will not leave a person homeless and hungry because nobody would willingly trade down. Every exchange in a free market adds value to both parties. Trading time for money means later trading money for food, shelter, and fuel to get to that job to make more money. The money for the food and fuel benefits both, otherwise neither party would agree to the exchange. For someone to be left hungry and homeless means they were the victim of less than free exchange. They were robbed, cheated, or coerced into such a state. Taking away capitalism means taking away freedom. This freedom doesn't mean people are free to rob and cheat. Even in "unregulated capitalism" this cannot last for long, because a free people are able to leave, free to not deal with cheaters, and free to defend themselves from coercion and theft.
There are benevolent capitalists. More common among small entrepreneurs than larger Corporations. However think back to the coal mining industry in the 1920s where mining company owned the Town, the houses the miners lived, the store where the miners bought their goods at company set prices. They employed Pinkerton strike breakers to keep the miners from organizing. Effectively keeping the workers (people) in virtual slavery. Or to quote Merle Travis' Lyrics sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford "Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go I owe my soul to the company store" If you don't think such things still happen today get hold of and read a copy of "The high Cost of Low Price"
And yet it was Rockefeller's son who was out there following up, setting up processes to enhance their way of life. That is the second CHAPTER in THAT story...please look it up. In the US we live under a free market system. Not sure what your political system is in Canada. My abbreviated knowledge base says that there is a large socialist component in Canada. Glad it works for you. I know several Canadians who are wealthy. They made their money in the US. One ran for PM under the Labor Party. If what Canada does worked better than what we have here in the US, then Americans would adopt it. Notice it hasn't happened. That's my opinion. 73 Chip W1YW
I do believe such things still happen but company towns are not capitalism. That's a monopoly enabled by rough terrain, poor education, and a number of factors that a free society does plenty to prevent. Also, I don't know anything about "The high Cost of Low Price" except that it is a documentary on Walmart. Walmart is a place that I cannot afford to shop as I can't afford to buy cheap junk twice. I try to buy reasonably priced products of reasonable quality elsewhere. Company towns had to be enforced by armed men when people started to get wise to how they were being exploited. Walmart can often create it's own kind of monopoly in small towns but this tactic is starting to fail them and they've tried to give themselves a new image. I don't know how successful this has been or will be. I'll find myself once in a great while with little option but to go to a Walmart and I'm still appalled at the cheap junk I find. At least they tend to carry brands I recognize along with the cheap junk so I can buy the name brand stuff at the same price I could get most anywhere else. Monopolies cannot exist for long in a free market. I don't even like the word "capitalism" since that's a label put on the free market by Marxists and socialists. It's a labeling and marketing game. If it's "capitalism" then it's "bad" because of reasons. Capitalism is just a bad label for the good idea of free markets. If a company is able to exploit any group or individual then this is either not a free market or it's a temporary situation that a free market will destroy. People can say bad things all they want about a free market, the problem is coming up with an alternative that isn't worse. The nice thing about a free market is that people are free to not participate. If any proposed alternative requires a private army to function, like that company town, then it's not "capitalism" and it's not better then a free market.
We are off topic here but In Canada we are a constitutional Monarchy (As it says on our coins Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Regina) effectively we are a Federal type democracy much like the US with a Capitalist economy tempered by a socialist leaning. The socialist content of Canadian government is in the field of medicine were the province of residence is responsible for medical services. We also have a first past the post election system. JD Jr. did try clean up his act after the CF&I scandal abetted by William L.M. King (one of our Prime Ministers and member of the liberal party and an accomplished spin doctor). The Labour party in the UK is active and alive. The Labour party in Canada was a fringe party founded after WWI and was defunct by 1930. I do not believe they managed to elect any MPs much less a Prime Minister.
Company town were used only used as an example of capitalism gone wrong. Under Adams Smith's economic capitalism he who produces the goods at the cheapest price has a competitive advantage. Where these systems (including Marx's communism) fall down, is that neither factored in human greed to the equation. The exploitation of the people to their detriment to maximize profits, irks me. It right up there with the mission statement of corporations who's primary goal is to " maximize shareholder value" and how personnel departments have morphed into "human resources" I don't begrudge anyone a reasonable profit but I stop at people being grist for the mill. I cited "The High Cost of Low Cost" as an example of how social responsibilities of certain corporations are avoided to gain a competitive advantage not to point a finger at any business in particular. Others do it by shipping the labour componant to LLCs (Low Cost Countries).
Well, it's a bad example because that's not capitalism doing anything, wrong or right. Sure, and labor has a price but the price of labor cannot go to zero in a free market because people will "shop" for work just like they shop for products.
I agree it can never go to zero, however it can get close it. Either by automation or by transfer of the labour to a low cost jurisdiction. Good luck shopping your job if it was transferred to Viet Nam or China because the person there will work for a fraction of what a person in the Americas will.
More accurate to say 'suicide'. Hardly a drug addict. You could learn a lot even by just reading up about him. Canada's loss.
Most people gloss over (or deliberately omit) that in his brilliant “...Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith recognized that reasonable government regulations were needed to keep markets functioning fairly to avoid monopolies and to regulate commerce for the common good.
