"mo·narchi·al (m-närk-l) adj. variant of monarchal"

Great and when were these grand old times exactly?

And why if so highly regulated was their state expenditure and administration so tiny?

Free markets, like Christianity, have not been tried and found wanting. They've been tried and found to be (in the market's case) unprofitable for the elite and (in Christianity's case) difficult.

So Putin can't develop an argument in reference to the fact that General Motors met "eccentric tastes that can't be met" and responded to "consmer tastes that matter little in a market economy" so he transparently posts a false equivalence about car companies from different countries in different decades.

Thanks for exposing yourself as the stupid tool that you are Putin.

"Unprofitable for the elite" is an excellent characterization of free markets.

Yes, it's all the nameless "elites" fault (or the Pharisees). Whatever reassures you when your Messiah turns out to be a false prophet and killed in public without any of his grandiose promises being kept.

Free markets in the 16th and 17th century destroyed the landed aristocracies hold on land based wealth and parliamentary politics in England. As the gold and silver from New Spain caused massive inflation in Europe the elite aristocrats in England found themselves paying more and more for their everyday goods, services, and supplies while at the same time their income was generated by fixed rents generated by long-term leases to peasants on their estates. The only people who could respond to inflation were the merchants who could adjust their pricing to compensate for rises in costs. This new class soon became the creditors to the aristocracy, and as the aristocracy bankrupted their ancient estates became the property of their socially inferior, but economically superior creditors.

You're the one using one of the most highly centralized and protected industries, who were just bailed out by the government, as an example of free markets at their best.

Oh but I get a silver 4-door sedan/death trap with crappy gas mileage or a red 4 door sedan/death trap with crappy gas mileage! Choices, choices!

Computers were just bailed out by the government? General Motors in the 1920's and 1930's was bailed out by the government?
Oh, I'm sorry Putin, you were attempting another false equivalence claiming that the bailout of General Motors in the financial meltdown of 2008 was related to the actions of General Motors eight decades earlier.
Please continue to make post with such glaring gaps in logic Putin. I'd expect nothing less from an individual as irrational as yourself.

Why is the original post stated as if it was bad news and phrased as if the poster was pleased? It's like Ren Hoek "I am happy being angry"

The funny thing about the premise of this thread "capitalism can't and won't last" is that whenever there is a shortage of anything human beings want a capitalist black market emerges immediately.

That's because markets are how humans organize to trade. It's a natural and normal human behavior. The problem arises from the fact that bandits/mafiosos/politicians all see that trade going on and want in on the action. They set up protection rackets aka governments to justify their theft.

More ahistorical nonsense. There's nothing natural or normal about markets. Markets came to exist after states/bandits/politicians, not before. Long distance trade on a large scale didn't develop until fairly late in the game. Most trade was limited to a small sector of the economy in market towns specifically designed for this purpose on a limited number of days.

"is that whenever there is a shortage of anything human beings want a capitalist black market emerges immediately."

How do people without access to clean water in your capitalist wonderland get clean water in the 'black market', and can they afford it so that your point actually matters?

Who said anything about the scale of trade? Doesn't matter. People trade. They organize markets to do so, often spontaneously. Yes, it usually helps to have a state of some sort to provide ground rules, so nobody kills anybody during haggling, and so armed thieves can't disrupt the market. Most people are content to pay off the protectors for those services.

And your off-topic comment is baloney anyway. There are archaeological finds showing quite significant long-distance trade in early societies. Amber from the Baltic area was all over pre-historic Europe. That's just one example. People trade. Though don't need a state to organize it.

I need to stop this pointless debate and go to bed. There's football to watch tomorrow.

"Who said anything about the scale of trade? Doesn't matter. People trade."

The scale matters if it's "natural and normal". If it's on a trivial scale then it's not natural or normal at all, but exceedingly rare. People didn't risk life and limb traveling long distances across treacherous terrains out of impulse or habit. In ancient times only extraordinarily luxurious products could motivate such a journey.

Read McNeil's "Pursuit of Power" and Polanyi's "The Great Transformation" if you want real history about the development of markets and trade, and not ideology masquerading as history.

The Ice Man wasn't carrying anything luxurious and from the isotopes of his teeth he was a long way from home when died. More irrefutable fact contradicting Putin's hollow rhetoric. Facts are something you don't find in Putin's posts. Reasoned example don't show up either. Just unsubstantiated denunciations of arguments he can't refute followed by a red herring.

The best histories of the rise of capitalism in England and it's transformation of society, economics, and politics are The Widening Gate and Landlords and Tenants in Britain, 1440-1660 Tawney's Agrarian Problem Revisited.

Putin must think a false choice is a logical statement. A black market can't produce goods that don't exist, clean water where there isn't any, but human beings immediately turn to market economics to distribute scare resources- illegal drugs, illegal liquor, sex, etc. etc. etc.

'The Ice Man wasn't carrying anything luxurious and from the isotopes of his teeth he was a long way from home when died. More irrefutable fact contradicting Putin's hollow rhetoric.'

How so? Migration for reasons other than trade don't, in fact, contradict Putin's

"People didn't risk life and limb traveling long distances across treacherous terrains out of impulse or habit. In ancient times only extraordinarily luxurious products could motivate such a journey. "

'The funny thing about the premise of this thread "capitalism can't and won't last" is that whenever there is a shortage of anything human beings want a capitalist black market emerges immediately.' - the funny thing is, that wasn't possible until relatively recently.

The existance of market towns depended on surplus production from agriculture, but for a huge majority of time humans were surviving on subsistence agriculture with minimal surplus available for trade.

Some of the US founding fathers would have been perfectly happy with a trade-free economy, idealizing the home as the centre of life, with independent farmers producing all they needed, including textiles. It was only in the industrial revolution that production (or goods) left the home and moved to cities. And this lead to a massive (exploitation of workers) increase in productivity, and hence a huge surplus - which made bulk trade of basic household goods a real possibility.

Before that you've basically got high value luxury goods, (silk, tea, jewellery) being traded with a minority of the rich (let's call them the 1%) Today by contrast you see cash crops being grown and exported while food is then imported.

'human beings immediately turn to market economics to distribute scare resources- illegal drugs, illegal liquor, sex, etc. etc. etc.'

It is interesting to note that Soviet workers were known to work overtime and produce extra goods which were not recorded or controlled by the command economy, and which they sold on a black market (by definition, anything which is un-regulated is a black market, right?) Or more likely, didn't sell, because the currency wasn't worth much without an open market to buy things on, it didn't really function as 'money', more like food stamps, so they probably bartered...

There is also evidence that 'money' decreases cooperation among small groups, while increasing it among larger groups. (because trust can be earned among a small enough group and thus they can survive/work together without formal trade, but in larger groups that cooperation falls apart, and money helps)

"Putin must think a false choice is a logical statement. A black market can't produce goods that don't exist, clean water where there isn't any"

You said shortage. Having zero access is in fact a shortage. Not we get all these qualifications for the effectiveness of your hallowed markets.

With all due respect there is evidence of both division of labor and of long distance trade in the tools and equipment the ice man was wearing. The iceman was found with various wooden tools made from woods that were historically not present together, or even nearby, meaning those materials were likely acquired by trade. Additional the shoes the iceman was found to wear had woven soles, these soles are incredible time consuming to make, which allows us to conclude that labour was likely divided so that someone could focus on making shoes without worrying about food. Both of these suggest trade was present in the time of the iceman.

Is trade a natural impetus? Perhaps not but you would have to go even further back than the time of the iceman to find a human species prior to the existence of trade, and the market.

Anyway, there are plenty of libertarians who advocate monarchy and point to the low taxes/low-regulation regimes of the classical monarchies as something to aspire to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

Here's one of more articulate ones.

No Putin, you are a liar. You don't find the words zero access in any of my posts in this thread. Why you would be so stupid as to tell a lie like that is beyond common sense.

"Is trade a natural impetus? Perhaps not but you would have to go even further back than the time of the iceman to find a human species prior to the existence of trade, and the market."

No, in order to show that there were markets at the time of the Iceman or the earliest known human societies you'd have to show exchange values based on the rise and fall of supply and demand. Values of the earliest states were equivalencies set by the State via royal decree. They had nothing in common with any notion of the market, they were systems of reciprocal exchange.

What is a shortage then, pray tell?

Damian, Here is an excellent article making the argument that Otzi was a trader.
http://www1.american.edu/ted/iceman.htm

That speaks volumes that this qualifies as an 'excellent article'. You just believe whatever google pops up.

A shortage is an excess of demand over supply. The supplied good can occur in abundant quantities, but if demand exceeds supply there will be a black market. Apple makes millions of I-phones, but when demand exceeded supply people paid a premium for them, like paying people money to wait in line for one.

Please continue arguing there is no market and what consumers want doesn't matter Putin.