Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. And let's all be thankful for capitalism and private property rights.


Private property and the Pilgrims

By Ilya Somin November 27, 2014

There is much to be thankful for on Thanksgiving. One lesson of the holiday that we should try not to forget is how the Pilgrims were saved from starvation and misery by private property rights. Economist Benjamin Powell summarizes the story here:

Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.

In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that “young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced. (M4M note: "social democracy")

Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves….

This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior….

Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
​

For a more detailed account of the Pilgrims’ transition to private property, see here. In my 2010 post on this subject, I explained why the lessons of the Pilgrims’ experience with property rights are in no way vitiated by the fact that the Plymouth Plantation was a corporation.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

-------------------------

Also:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s1.html

1623

All this while no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expect any. So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

 

Just what do you think socialism can do for you?

 

Communism has failed, and democratic socialism exists nowhere, so these are not relevant choices.

A number of years ago in I believe it was First Things I read an article that divided capitalism into four types.

The first was crony capitalism. In crony capitalism the dictator, his friends and his relatives own nearly everything in the country that is worth owning. They receive benefits and protection from the government. Crony capitalism is marked by extremes of wealth and poverty, and the difficulty of starting a business.

Then there is state capitalism. In state capitalism the government subsidizes businesses it thinks have the most growth possibilities.

Then there is corporate capitalism. In corporate capitalism the economy is dominated by corporations, most of which are no longer managed by the founders.

Finally, there is entrepreneurial capitalism. In entrepreneurial capitalism the economy is dominated by small firms, owned and managed by the founders, and it is fairly easy to start a business.

The article said that the United States combines corporate capitalism and entrepreneurial capitalism, and that this is the best way to do it, although in the United States the government should skew things a bit in favor of entrepreneurial capitalism, by reducing the wealth and power of the corporations.

To these I would add social democracy. In social democracy there is a mixture of capitalism and socialism, and efforts by the government to reduce economic inequality.

The system in North Korea resembles crony capitalism. The dictator and his cronies benefit most from productive wealth. Nevertheless, they cannot sell their shares, take the money, and move to the Rivera.

 

STILL we are talking about "economic inequality"?
The idea that it is somehow immoral for a Gates or a Buffet to be Billionaires while most of the teeming masses struggle along with less than $30K a year can only be a progressive liberal's wet dream.

Some questions;
1) provided that Gates or Buffet earned their money legally (IE not illegally) what business is it of anyone's what they do with it?
2) Assuming "government" can make the case that Gates or Buffet should give up their wealth, where then is the incentive for Gates or Buffet to continue to build business that creates jobs and products and services?
3) And assuming "government" can make the case that Gates or Buffet should give p their wealth to the teeming masses, where then is the incentive for the teeming masses to be self sufficient, and strive for a better life?

 

I've always found it rather interesting that an increasing number of people who are oh-so-angry are recipients of government benefits. You all bitch and moan about the next generation, but I think you all forget that I AM part of the next generation.

I'll let that sink in.




You all bitch and moan, but you get benefits. You depend upon me and my generation, but I would never deny you benefits.

 

Point to be made, the next generation is worthless, get the point?

 

The next generation is missing the key point. The very people the OP claims are bitching and moaning, are actually trying to save the next generation from themselves. The "next generation" have been duped by nefarious people and like teenagers can't really distinguish truth from fantasy, just like always. However the good news is, as they grow older they will grow wiser. This has been going on since the beginning of time. It's nothing new. The only thing that separates the next generation from the older generation is time. Time creates wisdom. Nothing to worry about.

 

Hell, I am sure all of us remember the day revelation hit us in the face and we said to ourselves, Mom and Dad were right. Still we didn't feel silly, our peers just gave us bad info that's all.

 

The next generation is worthless, time will not make it better for the 'next generation', it will only create more worthlessness.

 

We can only aspire to be you, mid-forties construction worker.

 

That's the most negative thing I've ever read on this site

 

I'm rather proud of what I have chosen as a career, and not half bad at what I do.

I wonder, is there anything in your own personal life that you have actually accomplished, that you can actually be proud of?, I know here in your E-life, I know I haven't seen much that you should be proud of.

 

Clarise told me that I depressed some on this thread by my comment, I then told her that I will do my best to protect your feelings more.

 

So you're just completely bad at it?

Oh, yes. Yes I do.

 

Did you trick some poor slob into marrying you ROM???

 

Easy there skippy, the advice that I give, is highly regarded, cherished and mentored.

Was it that time when you were working yourself through college, sweeping monkey shit off of the floors at the petting zoo's?

 

Are you new here or what? That is typical of ace's n 8's comments.

 

By whom, exactly?

Shouldn't you be calling that hard work ethic? And are you finally accepting I went to college?

My, my Ace. Be careful! You might be called in for a conference for saying I'm a hard working college graduate.

 

No one that you would know, or care about knowing.

Perhaps, yet it is not a trait that you hold dear.

That has never been a question, I have always held the opinion that you're an educated idiot.

Will there be some tits propped up on the conference table?