I thought it was an informative series. The perspective given on the history of Bolivia was interesting.
I think it might be misguided to discuss the "wealth creating" merits of capitalism, because the only examples of capitalism we have to study have all been based on unsustainable resource exploitation leading to the creation of "capital". Although, you could say the "capital" was already there, just in the ground.
The Bolivian silver mines were a perfect example of this effect.
In the US, you first had European crop rotation techniques applied to 3 million square miles of extremely nutrient dense, virgin soil. This created a food surplus, enabling the US to grow rapidly by attracting the most industrious immigrants, and incentivizing large families that could labor on productive farms. Slavery may or not have been a factor in this wealth. I tend to think it was counter productive, but I don't know.
In the next stage of the industrial revolution, you had the oil boom, which was again massive, unsustainable resource extraction. Capitalism definitely did mobilize these resources, and was able to exploit a class of very productive laborers, but this only lasts for a few generations, before people stop being willing to work.
You can see this happening in realtime with the boom of factories that hire almost exclusively from the Amish. The labor is cheap, plentiful, and reliable. It makes the factory owner gobs of money and/or allows for explosive growth, which is universally seen as a divine stamp of approval of the "good management" of the company. Unfortunately, the work is dehumanizing, and will destabilize the community if it continues to be allowed. For example, Weaver leather is already looking at outsourcing more to China, as the labor pool of childless Amish girls gets exhausted.
My point is that capitalism gets more credit than it should. It's not an inherently productive system, it just mobilizes unsustainable resource extraction better than any other system. That's not a positive thing in my mind.
I noticed almost right away, that Mike is arguing from what I would say is a mistaken philosophical position. He gives this hint early on:
Taxes are another form of socialism. Since humans by nature tend to care only about themselves, governments are forced to tax the population to make sure that publicly needed services are funded.
This is straight Hobbesian moral philosophy, and I think it's a load of nonsense. People by nature care about a lot more than just themselves.
Hobbes' Leviathan and social contract theory rose to prominence at a convenient time. The middles ages, distinguished by almost 1000 years of relative sustainability were coming to and end, freed from the burden of the common good as governed by the Church, it was becoming realistic to extract natural resources at a destructive rate never before seen in history. His theories were a perfect whitewashing of the greed that abounded in the elite as simply being "human nature", instead of condemning it for the mortal sin that it is.
Hobbes' materialism did not fully grip the western world until shortly after WW2, at which point our fate was sealed for good. It's been a good ride...for some.
To put it simply, I don't think capitalism "works" by harnessing human greed and laundering it into virtuous wealth. Capitalism just shows up when there are resources to extract, be they labor, or material. The "human nature" argument just serves to alleviate the guilt felt by the exploiters as they are condemned by their conscience. Confession and penance would be a better prescription for this malady than capitalism.
