Capitalism is not perfect, but much happier than socialism
In modern times, socialism/communism has been tried by a few countries, but each time ends in misery
The above quote in gold framing is written by a fourth generation Japanese American, whose family persevered through hardships to still prosper in the U.S. The name of the author is Weston Koyama, public defense attorney.
Here is the link to Koyama's full statement on capitalism: Readers respond: Free markets lead to free people - oregonlive.com
Somehow our universities seem to have educated the common sense out its recent graduates. And so, college graduates are instead indoctrinated with false hopes and false trust in government solutions, such as socialism.
The aspiring socialist leader talks of the government giving out free stuff, funded by taxing the so-called rich. The socialist leader effectively dupes, induces the unsuspecting voter, with free stuff, into voting the socialistic leader into power. The problem is rich people have the tendency to disappear if taxed, either by moving away, hiring CPAs and finding loopholes in the tax code, or just plain quitting their jobs/enterprises and living off the free stuff offered by the socialists.
Socialist leaders then end up having to cut services and institute quota systems/waiting lists. This leads socialists to resort to central planning for all goods and services, as people slack off, giving up working hard - and instead, relying on the government to supply their needs at no cost. In order for the socialists to retain power in an economy/society that is slowly dying of slowing production and resource misallocation, they end up resorting to jailing their opposition.
This is why socialist regimes end in tyranny and economic decline. The socialists will most always feed people the line- 'this time is different.' But in history, it is not different this time and the history of socialistic driven misery repeats.
Here's Google's AI summary of the immense pros of capitalism and its relatively small drawbacks:
AI Overview
The beauty of capitalism lies in its spontaneous order: individual people, pursuing their own self-interest and survival, cooperate through voluntary trade to produce complex global supply chains, widespread material prosperity, and unprecedented innovation without needing a central planner. [1, 2, 3]
Core Principles
- Voluntary Exchange: Transactions happen only when both sides expect to gain, eliminating the need for force.
- Spontaneous Order: Harmonious economic webs—like food and goods arriving daily in cities—emerge naturally from free choices.
- Incentive to Innovate: The desire for profit pushes creators to invent better tools, technologies, and art that elevate society. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Benefits
- Poverty Reduction: Global absolute poverty rates have fallen significantly over the last two centuries as market economies expanded.
- Abundance and Choice: Consumers gain access to a vast, diverse array of affordable goods from all over the world.
- Problem Solving: Decentralized pricing systems quickly signal where resources are scarce and where abundance is needed. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
Criticisms and Limits
- Inequality: Free markets can generate wide gaps in wealth and leave some individuals struggling to secure basic needs like healthcare and housing.
- External Costs: Profit motives can sometimes ignore environmental damage or social well-being unless restrained by clear public rules. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
________________
As to the cons list by Google's AI, I say this:
We do seem to be living in a gilded age of income inequality. But this is something best dealt with through the federal tax code, as it is relatively easy for the super-rich to move to states with no state or local income taxes. And even states with income taxes, the super-rich can invest in tax free municipal bonds and U.S treasuries to avoid paying state and local income taxes on interest earnings. Not so much with federal income taxes.
The highest profile external cost of capitalism is said to be greenhouse emissions. But I would say in response that the government's solutions for combating climate change caused by greenhouse emissions are about as costly as the climate change problem itself. Climate Change, capitalism's reported external cost imperfection, is a useful tool for socialists to harp on for supporting their takeover of government - which would allow them to lord over people, businesses and the economy in order for them to supposedly combat climate change. To this I say, it is better to allow people and businesses to adapt to climate change; and in doing so, avoid the heavy, forceful hand of government.
(posted by Elvis Clark on August 17, 2026)
Could we please stop the war on cars?
Despite PBOT replacing its simple street grid with a crazy maze of diverters - bicycling unchanged
I, Elvis, lived in Portland from 1981 through 2015, and most of my trips were by bicycle to work or shopping. I occasionally drove to work in the city.
I moved to Milwaukie, right next door, since 2015, to escape the madness of Portland's governance, and to allow my wife to still be able to drive into Portland for her various hobbies.
I find driving into the City of Portland highly frustrating since the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) started taking out road lanes, installing diverters, since the mid-2000s especially. In the 1980s and 1990s, when Portland's population is only 75% of its current level, I could easily and safely bicycle Portland's neighborhood streets even though they did not have the bicycle infrastructure now in place in Portland.
The ironic thing is that despite all of PBOT's investment against people driving their vehicles to get somewhere quickly, cross town for instance, bicycling's share of trips has not changed materially from its fractional share of all trips (something like 7% the last time I checked a couple of years ago and confirmed most recently by Randal O'Toole) over the last ten plus years.
What I observe is that a majority of bicycling is not for work or shopping but rather for recreation. Meanwhile driving has the same share of trips upwards of 80% that it has had for decades. But with PBOT's war on cars, driving in the city of Portland means more traffic congestion and maddening dead ends when trying to navigate by car Portland's streets - which used to be a simple, easy to understand grid pattern - which was actually planned way back a long, long time ago. (Can you imagine spending your career as a planner whose main mission is to stop the vast majority of people from easily, quickly commuting.)
Portland's war on cars sprang from what is called the Oregon Transportation Rule adopted in about 1990 (OAR 660-012). Here's the key passage of this Administrative land use law:
“A key outcome of this effort is a reduction in dependence on single occupant automobile use, particularly during peak periods. To accomplish this outcome, this division promotes increased planning for non-driving modes and street connectivity and encourages land use patterns throughout urban areas that make it more convenient for people to walk, bicycle, use transit, use automobile travel more efficiently, and drive less to meet their daily needs.”
Here's Randal O'Toole's study (quoted in the panel at the start of this posting) that finds that Oregon's Transportation Rule as implemented by the City of Portland and Metro Regional Government is an absolute failure:
7-27-26-Portlands-War-on-Cars-1_Losing-the-War-on-Automobile_PDF.pdf
But maybe electric bicycles and scooters is a means to improve mobility
Given the seeming inability to escape Oregon's Transportation Rule and PBOT's mad planners, the inability to build new roads, the relatively recent advancement in bicycle technology, or its electrification, seems worth pursuing as a means of improving Portland's mobility.
Electric bicycles and other micromobility like scooters can use the dedicated bicycle pathways having been installed or being built so to bypass the congested streets of Portland.
One key conundrum to advancing micromobility is funding the infrastructure (bicycle pathways, for example) micromobility could use. Bicycling pays no user fees to access the bicycle infrastructure, as it is hard to track who is using the pathways - whereas with cars, there is the gas tax and the new road usage fee for electric cars.
What I propose is to tap the Public Purpose fee - now used to chase after small, low return gains in energy efficiency - to fund bicycle/micromobility pathways.
The Public Purpose fee generates over $70 million per year in fee proceeds. The Public Purpose fee is created in the very early 2000s and was supposed to sunset ten years later, after it was supposed to capture the easier-to-get energy efficiencies. But the state legislature keeps extending the sunset date and so the fee continues on (The only thing close to having eternal life is a government program, as the Gipper use to say). The Public Purpose fee is a charge on your electric and natural gas utility bills.
Micromobility is not a panacea, but helpful in getting around the transportation maze planners and government have imposed on us all.
Why not a panacea? Well, first the Portland area gets inclement weather about half the time of the year - maybe less if Climate Change continues on its current trajectory (Hey, why move to California for the weather when Climate Change will bring it to us here in the Willamette Valley?)
Second, as we get older, we lose our nimbleness - as in we do not generally hop on skateboards as seniors (over the age of 60). (and Unfortunately, TriMet and Soft on Crime governance, has made riding the bus and especially light rail tattered with ongoing personal safety concerns, especially for seniors, children and the less hard body like people.)
(Posted by Elvis Clark on August 12, 2026)