This treatise is nonsense. I feel sorry for his students at Stockton University. What are the errors in this supposed "lesson in economics"? Let me count the ways.
"Older and wiser Americans know more about the workings of Capitalism and its overall positive outcomes in the real world." Older Americans have been inundated with propaganda their whole lives, and lived through a period of relatively good economic fortune, until the '80s. Younger Americans have not had the the same amount of brainwashing, and have seen the eonomic devastation that unfettered capitalism creates.
"At the most basic level is the assumption about the primary motivation of individuals". Also "Individuals receive the output not based on need but rather based on the value of the contribution an individual has made. The more one valuably contributes the more one is paid. This results in an unequal, although arguably fair, distribution of output."
This is one of the most damaging myths about capitalism ever perpetrated on the uneducated. It is true that up to a certain level, the potential for greater reward encourages greater effort. However, economic theory and analysis shows that that the income/effort curve flattens out as income achieves a high enough level. This income/effort/value idea is pure myth for very high earners. Jeff Bezos is or will very soon be a trillionaire and makes $78 Billion per year. Does Busler really want to make the argument that the labor value added by Bezos is a million times more valuable than that of a teacher or truck driver or an engineer making $78K? The average American with a Ph.D. earns a little over $3 million - in their lifetime, what Besos makes every 20 minutes.
This is the lie perpetrated by defenders of the uber-riche. Bezos is a trillionaire because he found a way to take a piece out of every one of the millions of online transaction that Americans make every day. He makes 30 million bucks every 18 holes of golf he plays. He makes 9 million while having dinner with his girlfriend. The FACTS - which Busler falsely claims are his to disseminate - is that the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires achieved most of their wealth, and also get most of their income, from returns on their investments, not through productive labor. The wealth of capitalists is based on returns from capital - the primary labor involved for wealthy capitalists is the labor of others. And a large percentage of the wealthiest Americans achieved their capital the old fashioned way - they inherited it.
"Upon death, the property can be passed on to anyone the owner chose." This is not a requirement for capitalism. Even after the cuts made by Republicants in the Bush and Trump years the government still takes 40% of estates in excess of $12 million, after skirting a whole slew of loopholes. For the first 40 years after WWII, before Reagan, the government took over 70% of the amount over a couple hundred thousand. The whole purpose of the inheritance tax is very American, and very captialist - the country was founded partly on the idea that inherited aristocracies lead to a less democratic society and a weaker economy. Since the days of Reagan this inherited wealth was greatly increased, and this trend accelerated under Bush, and exploded under Trump Nevertheless, inheritance is not a feature of capitalism, it is a function of government policy.
"The production, price and distribution of output are determined by market forces." Only true on a superficial level. The market can theoretically be a competitive market, which determines price and output according to supply and demand. In a competitive market there is zero long-run profit. But in monopoly capitalism - which characterizes the US today far more than competition - companies are able to reduce output and set the price at whatever level produces the most profit. And of course the author skirts over issues like negative externalities, pay-for-play corruption, and false information that are outputs of capitalism.
"This is done by over-taxing the most productive and giving free goods and services to those who have contributed little or nothing." A really ironic statement, given all of the documented cases of companies, like Amazon, who pay little or no taxes on trillions in income. And to say that someone receiving food stamps or disability has "contributed little or nothing" shows an embarassing level of arrogance and hubris, and ignorance.
"That’s why Socialistic economies tend to stagnate." This statement more than the others really shows the author's lack of understanding of the terms - or else a deliberate attempt to misinform. There is no economy in the world that is totally socialist, with the possible exceptions of Cuba and North Korea. But China is primarily socialist, and they are poised to replace all other capitalist nations to take over as the number one economic power. Socialism is not a thing - socialism is a matter of degree, and many countries with high degrees of socialism are doing great, much better than capitalist US. This bastion of capitalism is failing rapidly, and has diminished greatly in most measures of economic health and welfare vis a vis the rest of the developed world.
"The US economy experienced a period of stagnation from 2008 to 2016." Absolutely amazing. First, it is flat wrong - it is what Donald Trump would say, while bragging that his economy was better, despite the fact that his economy simply continued the growth started by Obama. The economy completely tanked in 2008. But the period October 2009 through 2019 was one of the longest periods of economic expansion in US history. Second, the crash in 2008 was a direct cause of the excesses that come from unfettered capitalism, spurred by the removal of controls by both Clinton and Bush. And the cure leading to the economic recovery was driven by a socialistic stimulus and enhancements to social programs like unemployment insurance and SNAP, not to mention the boost from the socialistic ACA.
Busler is a unapologetic right wing conservative and Trump apologist. That is not a reason to automatically refute his arguments, but whatever he writes needs to be questioned and challenged. He writes propaganda not supported by reality. For him to claim that a whole generation doesn't know what is really going on, followed by a sad attempt to educate them, is a waste of time.
