I wish the "if only" of Mr. Brown's thoughtful commentary indicated a real limit. However, the continued dependence of North American capitalism on the theft of the property of continental indigenous peoples is easy to document. See, for example, Ward Churchill's "Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide and Expropriation in Contemporary North America," Common Courage Press, 1993. In Canada, 3/4 of British Columbia, most of the Northwest Territories, and all traditional Innu Territory exists under the illegitimate control of Canadian governments and big businesses, and much of what passes as "treaties of land secession" would not withstand scrutiny in an impartial court. Yet the lumber continues to be cut (to make, among other products, the toilet paper of North America), the Dene negotiate for jobs in diamond mines in the NWT that will be owned and operated by multinationals, and the Innu are offered 100 jobs in the mine as compensation for the expropriation of Voisey's Bay (the world's largest deposit of nickel). These examples could be multiplied indefinitely.
In understanding the dynamics of capitalism a great deal of emphasis has been placed on tactics of reducing costs by exploiting labor. The complementary tactic, reducing the costs of production, has received less emphasis, and much of that involved with the saving obtained by business not cleaning up after itself. However, the conventional treatment of raw materials (air, water, trees, minerals, etc.) as if "free" or nearly free, and its true owners as nuisances (like mosquitoes), not only explains the "success" of capitalism but the continuing need to remove original peoples from the equations. To a great extent, not understanding this point allows, for example, Mr. De Long to consider "Your money or your life" as an opening move in trade negotiations rather than a robbery attempt backed by a murder threat.
Roland Chrisjohn