George Gilder: Capitalism is based on information and knowledge, not greed

> Capitalism is only possible where knowledge is shared unequally.

Not true! If everyone had access to a magical worldwide pool of all the economically relevant information that exists in the mind of any member of the human race (along with a search engine or something to let us index and query the data for effective use), there would probably be more trade, not less -- it would be easier to identify opportunities and connect buyers and sellers. The Internet did this, to a first approximation -- there are all kinds of niche products you can buy on the Internet.

> For example, if many people knew how to obtain the proper license or whatever and where to go to buy wholesale, then they would bypass retailers entirely.

Sam's Club, eBay, Newegg, overstock.com -- there are lots of ways for ordinary people to avoid paying retail. Many people do frequent these websites; retail is dying.

> Similarly, if many people had knowledge about how to start a business and knew several friendly venture capitalists or bank officers, many of them would start their own businesses and there would be few people to do the actual work.

For the first 100+ years of America's existence as an independent country, most Americans were small businesspeople -- farmers, mostly. The notion that working for someone else is the norm, and having your own business is the exception, only happened with the Industrial Revolution, when new technology shifted the economy toward businesses that required lots of workers and capital.

Since the Internet/software world is one of the major growth areas of the economy, and doesn't require any capital investment beyond a computer, an Internet connection, and (rather optional) formal training in the field, we're seeing that many people are choosing to start small businesses as individuals or small teams with minimal capital.

> They hate the 1% (which created a lot of jobs and innovation) for no good reason.

Envy and covetousness aren't "good" reasons, but they are certainly reasons humans have used to hate each other throughout history.

> France made it so easy to get welfare and taxes so high (40-50%) that it's better to collect welfare then actually do any work

Romney's ad criticizing Obama's rollback of the requirement established under President Clinton, that welfare recipients must actively look for work, speaks to exactly this point.

I wonder if technology will ever make this model sustainable -- if we have most of our farms, factories and mines run by robots and computers with minimal human intervention, could we produce enough food, clothing, shelter, and basic necessities for everyone if the only people who work are those who wish to do so?

The reason Republicans have produced mediocre candidates for a while is that the party has too many constituencies: You have the religious right (mainly concerned about moral decay and social issues, think Huckabee), the neocon faction (pro-big-government and foreign policy hawks, think GWB), and the libertarians (Tea Party, Ron Paul -- mainly in favor of smaller government and lower taxes).

Their traditional base is dwindling; a near-majority of people don't pay any federal taxes, so can't be bribed by tax cuts and are very uncomfortable with social-program cuts. Religion is on the decline. We haven't suffered any major terrorist attacks lately, and GWB's wars have left many interventionists with a sour taste in their mouths. So they're trying to reach out to new constituencies; in this election cycle, it's immigrants and women, judging by the convention speeches.

We need a strong candidate who can fix the mess before we become locked circling the drain that France has gone down. It's hard to see this candidate coming from either party.

Yes, there is no right for resting on your past achievements, there is arguably a fair way of getting advantages secured for a limited amount of time: innovation, adding to others innovations, combining others works, opening new markets. And the other "unfair" way: patent-abuse, monopolies, cartels, copycats with no added value, lobbying for the gains of a few who are already better off. Some of that has been made illegal some of it just feels morally wrong. Basically it comes down to moral norms, which society can turn into laws if considered important enough by a majority. Its all comes down to finding a balance, economics will never be perfect or fair for all, but I consider it the goal of politics to be getting it closer to that ideal state which should be beneficial to all in the long run.

I'm not beating up on him for not batting 1000, I'm beating up on him for being a looter. KP was a solid, profitable company. Bain bought it, saddled it with debt (shame on the bankters, too), paid themselves massive management fees and "dividend". They made lots of "profit" from this exercise, but left a lot of people much worse off.

I have no problem whatsoever with people making a lot of money.