I rarely agree with Jon Stewart on politics but I have to admit he is a very funny man.

I am reading In Praise of Idleness of Bertrand Russell... and man! I love this guy! I know he his an atheist philosopher but he is one of my favorites.

I am building up the idea that we are in desperate need of a radical economic reform. I completely agree with his book. For some reason I cannot understand, we western people keep trying to find solutions on the same methods that are constantly failing. Nothing lasts forever not even open market capitalism.

The only escape is radical reform in economics and in thinking society paradigm... or we are F$"#%& - Revolutions, wars, resource depletion, energy crisis, increased income inequality, famine and injustice will go rampant...

I always get frustrated by the narrowmind of people who seem to  acknowledge that there are only 2 economic models feasible! To worsen things up it seems that any economic system that has some meaningful differences from the one we have, it is most often labeled as communism in a tone as if communist ideology was some sort of satanic cult!

For starters let me enlighten you that B. Russell was very critic of USSR communism. But he was also very critic on the way the west deals with socio-economic activities. This book I'm reading is not so much a "praise of idleness" but a praise to a rational economic structure. He advocates, with crystal clear logic, that it is not only possible but necessary for most of the workforce to work for about 4h daily or 20h a week. He speaks against the vicarious cult of work that he sees as no longer necessary. Given the fact that we have excess workforce and much unnecessary work worldwide, this makes perfect sense.

 "Capitalism" isn't so much an economic system as it is simply the result of a society that allows/protects private property rights and uses a currency. The term "capitalism" is often used in place of "laissez-faire capitalism" which is an economic system focused on minimal government intervention in markets. Socialism, marxism, state capitalism etc. are really terms for systems with varying levels and types of government involvement in the economic system. All these systems are "capitalist" in the sense that some entity uses a currency to invest in production and the profit is distributed. The real difference is who invests the money and who distributes the profits. 

The only system that truly rejects capitalism is a communistic type system that removes the idea of property ownership. Historically, the only real examples of these are small tribes and the occasional commune.   

Edit: By the way, in a laissez-faire system (or even the US's somewhat less than laissez-faire system) it is completely possible to survive working only 4 hours a day (or even less) if you want. Of course, you probably won't be as rich as you would working 60 hours a week but it is your choice.

That's counter to free market capitalism.

It doesn't matter.

I'm a free market capitalist, and you can whine, bitch and moan, all you want. I'm close to the top, and I ain't sharing my sandwich.

That's not a good enough excuse.

My parents are European, and were raised in poverty, pre and post WWII, and neither were well educated, and barely literate.

They moved.

ROFL, the only question is where to move to now. Sometimes I think our government is almost obsessed with becoming more European. The US used to be a haven for free market capitalism, I'm not sure how much longer that will last. 

Heinlein suggested we go to the moon.... the view would be nice, but I think I would miss my backyard and fresh air. 

I must have missed the punchline...

No, I think if someone wants laughs, they go straight to Colbert.

Isn't what we have in America now state capitalism? The Fed's policy has been to loan money to the banks at near 0%. The banks just loan out this money at around 5% for mortgages and higher rates for small business and even higher rates for credit cards. Or they use the 0% interest loans to buy stocks and make commodities bets. If the banks and bankers make a profit, they pay high income taxes. If they lose money, they get bailed out. The banks are just an extension of the Fed.

There really isn't much private investment or private capitalism. Just private companies and individuals that bet on which way a commodity or stock will go.

So I would say our economic system is state capitalism with middlemen(bankers) and a state regulated casino system to allow bets to placed on anything.

If your sole goal is to make sure everyone has the same amount of money. Although, when you recognize that the "poor" in America are still quite wealthy compared to the vast majority of the worlds population. So while or "gap" between the poor and wealthy is large, it doesn't matter. The amount of wealth in a country is not fixed. When one person becomes wealthier, another person does not necessarily become poorer. It is very possible, and usually the case, that when the rich get richer, so do the poor in real terms (i.e. how much stuff they can afford).

Quite the contrary. I wish the whole world (including the US) would embrace true laissez-faire capitalism. Everyone would be wealthier for it, people wouldn't starve to death and the "poor" would be people who bitch because they can't afford the premium channels on cable. I think it is abhorrent the way governments oppress people and the way welfare states enslave their populations by treating them like helpless children. But, I can't change the world. I am working hard enough just to change one little corner of my own country... and losing to the false promise of government security. 

Why isn't it fair? For 9 months you will be earning a good wage and I assume lodging is included, and maybe meals? By the end of the trip you should have 10k to 20k in cash. Plenty to invest in a business opportunity. An opportunity provided to you by an evil rich corporation and wealthy people who blow money on cruises. If they didn't exist, what would you do? 

And why are they not there? Look at the barriers to starting a new business and you will see the reasons why there are fewer jobs. Manufacturing is not the only job field, and IMO not even a good job field. Manufacturing jobs really suck, why would you want to do it? There are plenty of other jobs you can do to provide value to consumers. It is actually rather easy to make a million dollars selling sandwiches....if you get the fucking government out of the way. It is a lot of physical work, but from an intellectual standpoint it is easy. There are hundreds of market opportunities if you have the capital to start them and can find workers who are willing and capable of making them work (or do the work yourself). I have more ideas on how to make money than I have time or initiative to dedicate to them. Shit, I had a million dollar idea just yesterday that I crossed off as too much work, but I forgot what it was. It is going to bug me now. 

Right now the American economy is suffering from a lack of money in consumers hands because so many are in debt to the point where they can't buy much. This is because we spent todays dollars over the last decade. So opportunities will be slow until more Americans catch up on their bills, however, opportunities still exist. For example, I have just invested in opening up a second-hand store that specializes in quality used furniture. I anticipate that it should do well for me since many people can't afford brand new furniture, but still want things the look nice. My business partner is talented at repairing furniture and has spent the last year picking up pieces from estate auctions. There are always sectors of the economy that are doing well, the trick is predicting which ones will be prosperous and which are in decline. It isn't rocket science, but it does take a little research.  

Who said you have to be Bill Gates? I will never be that rich because I am too lazy. The only way to make it that big is to do the work of building a massive corporation yourself. For me it is enough to bring in six figures, if I ever make it to the millions, let alone billions, it will be because one of my business partners was really motivated. At that point, I might admit the Brian that it was luck.

When I first started investing I took 12k and gambled it all. I was poor but I figured what did I have to lose? If I lost everything, I would have exactly what I started with. As it turns out, I lost it all because I was a dumb ass. So I went back to working for the man for a couple years and saved up my money again. Invested with a little bit more wisdom (although I was still a dumb ass) and made a little bit out of it. In the US if you invest with a little bit of intelligence out of 10 investments you should be able to average making 2-3 times your investment in 2, break approximately even in 3, and lose everything in about 4 and one will be very successful and provide you a sustained income.  Of course, your odds can be increased if you are more knowledgeable and make wise choices about what to invest in.

If you can bank an average of 10k a year from your job you can invest 10k every year. You might go broke the first year, so what? Try again. If you invest 10k every year for 10 years some of those investments will start returning a sustained income. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that after 10 years you would be experiencing a return of around 20-30k/year or more. Actually, personally I would be quite disappointed with that small of a return, but let us suppose you are a bad investor. After 10 years, you are now making enough each year to pay for the bare essentials before you even go to work. If you choose to continue working as a wage earner you are simply making money for luxuries or more aggressive investing.   

The cruise job sounds like the perfect opportunity for you to save up investment capital. I would suggest you do so and join the ranks of capitalist pigs like me, but it is your money, spend it as you wish. 

Well, yes and no. You are right that demand can't grow exponentially, but it can grow at a moderate amount continuously. One of the main reasons the US is in this depression is because the government artificially inflated demand. By lowering interest rates, it encouraged people to borrow money to buy things in the 90's. Cheaper money meant people were buying things using money that would be made in the future. Every time the economy started slowing, the government would cut interest rates again to increase demand. Sooner or later, you have to pay the debt, and that day arrived causing a massive drop in demand in most sectors. So the economy really boomed in the 90's because it was growing faster than it should have by spending todays money early. If the government didn't set interest rates, or had some sanity in setting them, the economy would have experienced a minor slowdown. Labor would have been shifted to different areas and most people wouldn't have known the difference except for those directly affected.

A recession is simply the free market recognizing that demand has dropped in one area, and resources are reallocated to areas that have demand. A small recession is a necessary and healthy thing for a free market. If there is not enough demand for any of the current products, capitalists will create new products or find ways to make previously expensive luxuries more affordable. Why do you think i-pods, laptops and smart phones are cheap as dirt? Apple is a company that solely creates luxuries, yet remains one of the best companies in the world to invest in. Google makes their money by simply organizing information. They created a service and created a demand for it.

Now one other area that you have a bit of a point on is China or any other 3rd world manufacturing country for that matter. We are in a point in history where markets are colliding. There is a great book on the subject When Markets Collide: Investment Strategies for the Age of Global Economic Change by Mohamed El-Erian. Since most countries have substantially lower quality of life than the modern world, they are able to provide labor extremely cheap for pretty much any good that can be shipped over seas. It is inevitable that such pressures will have a depressing effect on wages in developed countries. However, the depressed wages are also offset by lower prices for many goods. If everything at Walmart was 20% more expensive, it wouldn't really matter if your wage was 20% higher because either way you can buy the same amount of goods. Personally, I think it is insane that many think we should try to compete with China in manufacturing. They will be able to do it cheaper until their standard of living increases. If they want to make cheap shit, let them. We can focus our efforts on creating service oriented luxuries.

That being said, there is much we can do in the way of applying pressure on China and other countries to modernize and improve the standard of living for their people to speed up the process of our markets integrating and make it less painful. We need to stop them from fucking with their currency, if that means withhold food and money from them, fine. We need to demand true free trade. That might mean a trade war like we had with Japan, fine. The US has a clear advantage in all things regarding trade because we are the wealthiest country on the planet, we are one of the few that produce surplus food and honestly, we have enough Chinese junk to survive on for decades. We have the power to hit them where it hurts, and can outlast them in any trade dispute.

The only countries that really have us by that balls are the oil producers. We could fix that and produce our own oil if it wasn't for the Greenies, and bust Saudi Arabia's bullshit oligarchy but I am dreaming now. The point is that we could force those countries to modernize if we withheld our money. It would be a little inconveniencing in the short run, but would be great for our economy, and the global economy, in the long term. It is almost enough to make me support Donald Trump for president because he is the ONLY potential presidential candidate that seems to understand what must be done in this regard.  

/rant until later, even us capitalist pigs have to get a little bit of work done in a day. 

Depends on how much it takes to be a "pig". I am not a multii-millionaire.... yet, but about 3/4 of my income comes solely from the labor of other people. 

There were also a lot of the rich who got substantially poorer and a ton of the rich who should have lost everything if it wasn't for the government intervening with its bailouts. The poor get wealthier when the rich get wealthier because you have to look at what a rich person does with their wealth. Very few put it in a coffee can. They spend it or invest it. When they spend it, generally the money is going to people who are comparatively poor. They increase demand for goods and provide jobs. When it is invested, likewise that money is going to pay the incomes of workers. If you are working for a successful company that is making money, your pay will be higher than if you work for a company that is failing. Most business owners will reward their good employees with bonuses and such when the company is particularly successful. Of course, some don't, but they will find the quality of their workforce substantially reduced and tend to fail. 

Most people who are chronically homeless in the USA have severe drug and/or alcohol issues or mental disabilities. One area where the US is an abject failure is taking care of those who have mental problems to the point where they are unable even to apply for assistance. Although, I don't see how that really has anything to do with the economic system. We certainly have plenty of resources available, it is more of a distribution problem. Those who are homeless, but capable, have plenty of assistance available either through government or through private charities.

You don't see the link.... then you make the link. With the average salary in the US you could easily set aside 10k a year, or more. With the exception of the incapables that I mentioned above, anyone in the US who works at even minimum wage, 40 hours per week, can support themselves and save a little besides. If making more money is important to you, you can work 60 hours a week and save 10k within a year. Although good luck finding a job that only pays minimum wage.... they are few and far between. Even during the recession most jobs pay more. My point is that even the "poor" in the US are quite wealthy by world standards. Very few Americans live without cell phones (at least $50/month), cable tv (at least another $50), internet (even dial-up is $20) and a variety of other luxuries. The only ones who truly have no income are those that either choose to live that lifestyle, or those who have such severe issues that they are incapable of taking care of themselves. Which, I will freely admit is an issue our country struggles with, mostly because it is really difficult to detain someone against their will, and many who are in that bad of shape don't even know it.  

I imagine Portugal mostly has issues because of its relatively small size and it's economy is probably very dependent on the rest of Europe and the US, plus its ridiculous public debt. Although, Portugal does have some excellent wines. The wine industry has been lagging slightly because of the recession, but high quality Portugal wines can serve as an alternative to the over priced French and Spanish wines. Perhaps after your trip is over, the wine industry might be something to look into? There is really good money in importing wines to the US. Then you could make a living flying back and forth between Portugal and the US until your country gains their sanity and gets the public debt under control. Or you could take the wine to Australia, because their wine sucks so it would be good for them to learn what good wine tastes like. You would probably need a little more than 10k to invest, but if you are willing to invest that much yourself, it is easier to find other investors.  

The market in China is not free. Right now, we have a problem with China intentionally devaluing its currency to exacerbate the cost gap in manufacturing. They do it, because they don't give a shit about the standard of living for their people. They also use heavy tariffs to discourage imports, while demanding that we have none. In a truly free market with a real free trade agreement, China would have far less of an advantage than they do now. We could use our economic muscle to force them to free up their markets and participate in truly free trade.

And great business advice. Companies that make high quality goods at low cost and pay high wages are inevitably very successful. Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google, 3M etc. They are all known for paying very high wages and to attract the best talent in the world. Quality might be a little questionable with Microsoft.... but there are benefits to being the first. Free markets reward good business decisions, and there were few businessmen better than Mr. Ford. Note, he did it all while fighting the unions every step of the way. It is a shame that Ford will eventually fall into bankruptcy because of the UAW.

We have some of the largest oil tracts in the world in Alaska that remain completely untapped because of the greenies. If we kicked our oil production up to full speed, we could produce enough to supply most, if not all of our oil needs. The US is a resource rich country, if we decided to tap into those resources. 

Climate change? I don't think it is so much a conspiracy as a cause that has been adopted as an excuse to increase government power. I believe the climate is going to change or not change regardless of what we do, unless we take extremely drastic steps that might have consequences far worse than global warming. I do not believe that the world is going to end because of climate change, or that half the world will be wiped out or other doomsday scenarios. 

As for need "3 planets" I don't really buy that either. True, if everyone had the same standard of living some things might need to change. For example, oil shortages might become reality. However, we have the technology available to make more renewable substitutes for oil. We can get energy out of pretty much anything if we try hard enough. There might be ore shortages for various metals, but even that could probably be overcome if there was enough incentive for it. Or we could go mine asteroids. Even if it will occur at some point, it will take a long time to bring the whole world up to that standard of living, no doubt technology will look extremely different than it does today, especially if there is that much incentive. Replacements for metals, oil and other non-renewable resources will be found. 

If you go to http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hong_kong_statistics/statistics_by_subject/index.jsp?subjectID=2&charsetID=1&displayMode=T you can take a look at some labor stats in Hong Kong. Yes there is a huge disparity, but the real question should be why? When income disparity occurs because highly skilled workers are paid massive sums while those with no skills get paid little, who cares? Should someone who has no education and has no special skills get paid the same as someone who has a good education and specialized skills? I don't think so. You can look at the data, and quickly see that those in the bottom 20% of the population cause the main drag to wages making less than $35/hr. When you look at the numbers by job and education level you will see that only those who have the lowest education levels make less than $35/hr. So rather than blame the evil capitalists, if you want to improve the value and therefore the wages to those workers, perhaps you should be looking at improving the education system. Of course, a certain number of those who are below that $35/hr might be getting paid that while working on getting an education. I do not know how mobile the Hong Kong economy is in that regard, finding reliable stats on it is a bitch. The US is highly mobile, in that many people who are in "poverty" are there while going to school or in an apprenticeship that will lead to a good job. So it looks bad on the poverty stats, but really means nothing.

I don't care if income is even approaching equal in an economy. I do not think it is a healthy sign. On the contrary, it can be quite unhealthy because heading towards income equality usually equates to everyone getting closer to the lowest denominator. To me, the ideal economy is one that allows an individual to reach their full potential with minimal artificial blocks in their way. A person does not necessarily need to make a million dollars, but if they have the opportunity to do so should they choose it is good.

On the other hand, many people may not choose to dedicate their lives to making money. If a person chooses to work a low level job, making little money and they are happy with that, I don't care. Sure, they are adding to the dreaded income disparity, so what? The question is that if that person decides they want to make more money, do they have to mobility to work hard, be creative and otherwise make themselves valuable enough to earn money and maybe become a business owner themselves. In the US the answer is a clear yes. In Hong Kong, they have a unique situation in that it is a geographically small area that has really high demand for business causing real estate to be ridiculously high priced. With so much external money coming in to buy every decent property on the market, I can see how that would present a challenge for a local worker to buy property. But the answer to this solution is not to destroy what makes Hong Kong attractive to businesses. The answer is to export economic freedom to say China. If China had the same economic laws as Hong Kong it would be far easier for someone to purchase real estate and set up a business as a local because a drastic increase in land area, means increased supply to meet the high demand, means more reasonable prices. 

If there is a shortage of grain, the best solution isn't to take grain from everyone who has it and try to spread it around equally. The best solution is to grow some more grain. Only when growing more grain becomes a physical impossibility should you consider other measures. Right now, there is plenty of space on our world to increase economic freedom. 

I don't see that. Granted, I don't personally know any billionaires, but I do know and have met many millionaires. Most of them dream of doing what they love to do. People who make that kind of money are in fields they love, doing what they love on a daily basis. Most of them are really compassionate people who love nothing more than when someone who used to work for them makes something of themselves. I hear this stereotype all over except in reality. Sure, there are probably a few scumbags out there who would make themselves rulers if they could. But you see that kind of attitude in non-capitalist systems such as the Saudi's than you do in a system where a billionaire made their money. I don't think Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Ellison or the Waltons have any desire to run a feudal state. But yeah, that is the role of government. If Bill Gates builds an army and uses guns and force to make workers do things or to force someone to purchase Windows 7, government should step in. If workers are voluntarily agreeing to the contract and buyers are voluntarily purchasing the product because they are stupid, government has no role.     

Really? Maybe you could enlighten me. We are in a 30's like depression, the only difference is this time we had a lot more wealth to fall back on. How did the bailout help at all? Who is better off other than a bunch of the Wall Street fat cats? The bailouts and the stimulus package create precisely the feudal like system that you claim Laissez-faire would lead to. Namely, corporations using their money to get the government to use their guns to take tribute from the rest of us for their personal gain. I don't understand why anyone would support it except for those who received the billions. 

The state in itself is not evil anymore than a gun is evil. It is simply a tool. And, as all tools can be, it is often abused. Those with power will abuse it. If you can learn anything from history you can learn that state tyranny is the rule, not the exception. When there is power, those who desire to will find their way to it and abuse it. The ONLY way to stop that kind of abuse is to have a state with severely limited power and a state with power that is focused on protecting liberties of individuals rather than taking them away. In an ideal world, the state would be set up as the referee, charged with clearing up disputes in a fair manner. The state would have absolutely no ability to favor one side over another. Unfortunately, in the real world, the state routinely chooses one side over another and favors one group of people over another.

True, in any given society there is a certain percentage of people who are incompetent. Because of their circumstances, they are unable to take care of themselves and absolutely no law and no economic system is going to change that. The only thing you can do for those people is provide them with charity. I think charity is best offered through private funds, which are better able to discriminate towards those who really need help, and those trying to "work the system". But, as a practical matter, I have accepted that a certain social "safety net" is going to exist. We have a very extensive one now...but people still bitch about the poor. Guess what? If you are on welfare, social security, disability, food stamps or whatever other handout you damn well better be poor. If you want money, make it. If you are happy poor, stop your bitching. The reality is that there is money and power in class warfare, no matter how much money is funneled through the government to the poor it will never be enough.

As for the inheritance, I am sympathetic to an inheritance tax. I am a strong believer that when a person dies 100% of their money should go to charity. However, I do have problems with encouraging government forced charity. I don't like using the government to force anything, and since I fight so hard against others using the government to enforce their morality, it would be hypocritical to try to use it to enforce mine. Although, in a free market most "old money" runs out. Even the largest fortunes in American history are dwindling within only a few generations unless the inheritors effectively took over the business. The Vanderbilts and Rockefeller amassed historic fortunes but those fortunes have dwindled. While still prominent families in the US, they are nowhere near as influential or wealthy as they once were. It is rare for a child raised in a family that wealthy to continue having that kind of success. 

Self made man doesn't happen often? In the US it is quite common. The vast majority of businesses are ran by self made men (and women). While reaching the billionaire list is certainly extremely difficult, look at who is on it from the US. Most of them are self made with the obvious exceptions of the Waltons who were direct descendants of a self made man and currently in the process of losing his fortune. But of course, no matter how you cut it and how much income you distribute, only 1% of people are going to be in the top 1%. Less than 10% of the wealth in the top 1% of Americans is inherited. The other 90% is from self made people. 

I love wine. One of my dreams is to purchase a winery to retire on. And yes, you need a ton of money to invest in an actually winery. Here in the US you need at least $5 million. I wasn't suggesting you start a winery. I was suggesting that you start a company that exports wine. Generally, wineries will pay good money to someone who can hook them up with a series of wine shops for regular shipments. I would think that a person playing the middle man and selling wine to American wine shops and then making sure the proper government paperwork is taken care of could make themselves a decent fortune. Yellow tail has their marketing niche as people who don't know what good wine tastes like. They make their money through sheer numbers through cheap wine in mega marts. I think Portugal could take advantage of a different market, those who enjoy high quality wines but can't afford the snobby $100+ bottle French wines. Even high quality California wines are $50+. It seems to me that a high quality wine offered between $30-$60/bottle would sell well in many American wine shops. Most wine shops around here offer only a few selections from Portugal if they offer any at all. Seems like a lot of money could be made to me. 

Cya around!

Trickledown is a lie, dude...

I don't think trickle down is a lie, the idea is just over-stated.  If your goal is income equality or reducing overall poverty, trickle down isn't going to work as well as outright wealth redistribution.

It is all about percentages.  Pulling numbers out of my butt, say trickle down increases total wealth by 10% per year and the poor get 1% of that.  In other more socialistic schemes income might only increase by 7%, but the poorer classes might get 50% of that.

Income redistribution isn't the goal of trickle down economics, it's a minor side effect that capitalists push to get socialists to shut up.

Touche, Melle

I don't think 'redistributing the wealth' should ever be society's goal, however. My aim is towards meritocracy as realistic as is possible (what Beyond pretends to strive for and what  rednef appears to want)

bla

Can you site an example of where the market overpays for one person and unpays another? Why is that the case?

Okkkaaaayyy, I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but that still has nothing to do with Beyond's trickledown point(that melle addressed quite decisively, albeit for the wrong reasons)

Well, that depends on your goals, right?

If your goals are a somewhat smooth wealth distribution curve and low levels of poverty then a person could cite America versus all the more socialistic leaning capitalist nations.  If your goals are gross GDP growth over time, you couldn't cite America.

Although, saying the free market fails when the government fails to intervene, the school systems fail and overpopulation exists isn't really fair, is it?  Once you say that you're setting up for a No True Scotsman fallacy where any failure can be attributed to those causes and the idealized free market is forever sacred.

I'd say that would be like me asking you to show me where Communism failed, and it wasn't because of human nature and corrupt leadership

I'm not saying it fails... I'm saying trickledown isn't an example of it 'winning'

Well, the goal of any given economic system seems to depend entirely on whom you are speaking with, so I don't disagree with that at all.  Like I said, define a goal, then you can choose a metric and attempt some sort of objective analysis.

That isn't the goal, that's the method.

What's with the "pretends"? I'm not sure if I should be offended by that or not.

Societies goal ought to be to protect individuals from other individuals that attempt to use coercion. Ironically, it takes coercion (government) to do that. I believe group coercion should be as minimal as possible. I see government as a necessary evil so that individuals can operate with some reasonable assurance that they will not be robbed, killed, raped, defrauded etc. The problem is that the government can be used to rob, kill, rape and defraud. My main concern is how much of America (and the modern democratic world) have accepted the governments power to rob and kill as not only a legitimate power but one that there is a moral duty for government to exercise. We also seem to be increasingly tolerant when the government commits fraud because it has become accepted that "everyone does it" in DC. Just because every does it, does not mean they should have the power to.

Laissez-faire capitalism is the result of having a government that has extremely limited power.  

Red wines:

EA; Cartuxa (reserve); Foral Evora; Pera Manca (bit expensive...)
Borba premium
Herdade do Sobroso (Cellar Sellection);  
Most wines from http://cortesdecima.com/ are good.
Monte da Cal... and many other top wines from http://www.daosul.com/en
Herdade do perdigão reserva http://www.herdadeperdigao.pt/
http://www.winedouro.com/
...

White wines:

http://www.ervideira.pt/ (the top wines)
http://www.adegavidigueira.com.pt/produtos_EN.php (Vila de Frades and Vila dos Gamas Antão vaz)
Foral de Evora
Dourosa

Sparkling wines:

http://pt.adegga.com/wine/AVIN9717802396910-raposeira-velha-reserva-bruto-1999

Port wines:

Vintage from Ferreira; Ramos Pinto; Offley; Burmester.

 

There are more, but I would have to look for them. You can also ask for my advice from a selection of portuguese wines, but I'd recommend you email me for that...