Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

definition of capitalism

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 6:55:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is interesting to analyze the terminology we use in these discussions from perspectives that come from outside economics. For instance, "voluntary" from a psychological standpoint can be complicated. If I tricked you or coerced you in some way to agree to something, no psychologist would defend that your action was truly voluntary. But to an economist, these matters are cut and dried (e.g., a smart enough salesman can get you to "volunteer" any number of things) not to include such bothersome analyses. Economics is a means to its own end in which disciplines like physics, biology, and psychology are trumped and replaced, even while using methods that truly must be relinquished to these disciplines to be resolved.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 6:56:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."
- Keynes
Rob
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:13:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Ya, you left out the part where you understood anything about basic economics
President of DDO
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:19:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Yeah, and we'll motivate people to create a hell of a lot more capital by starting businesses that sell affordable goods and services and employ people if we simply confiscate their wealth.

If you think workers should take a share of the profits of the company or business they work for, then surely you'd be for having workers suffer the losses as well.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:27:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:13:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Ya, you left out the part where you understood anything about basic economics

As far as I can tell, basic economics starts with throwing out all other scientific disciplines.
Rob
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:30:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:27:15 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:13:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Ya, you left out the part where you understood anything about basic economics

As far as I can tell, basic economics starts with throwing out all other scientific disciplines.

No...
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:31:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:19:58 AM, quarterexchange wrote:
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Yeah, and we'll motivate people to create a hell of a lot more capital by starting businesses that sell affordable goods and services and employ people if we simply confiscate their wealth.

If you think workers should take a share of the profits of the company or business they work for, then surely you'd be for having workers suffer the losses as well.

They aren't suffering the losses already? What else would you have them lose?
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:48:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:30:01 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:27:15 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:13:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Ya, you left out the part where you understood anything about basic economics

As far as I can tell, basic economics starts with throwing out all other scientific disciplines.

No...

Oh, you' be surprised actually. The more you learn about physics, philosophy, ecology, sociology, and psychology, the more dissonance you will notice in theories of economics. Take the chap at the beginning of the thread who took comfort knowing that voluntarism was reinforced by capitalist tenets. Has he thought through what "voluntary" actually means to a psychologist? Of course not. Do economists defer to ecologists on issues of natural resources? Or sociologists concerning the mental health of the community regarding their products? Does McDonalds consult the medical community to help fashion its extra malue menu?

Economics should be reinvented to rest atop the whole of social science (which in turn rests atop natural science), so that externalities to the equations do not manifest themselves in the destruction of our environment, culture, and health. Instead, economists lay claim to a fundamental position in the realm of scientific inquiry, which bypasses the whole of human knowledge and thus results in the problems we see before us now.
Rob
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 7:51:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:48:47 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:30:01 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:27:15 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:13:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Ya, you left out the part where you understood anything about basic economics

As far as I can tell, basic economics starts with throwing out all other scientific disciplines.

No...

Oh, you' be surprised actually. The more you learn about physics, philosophy, ecology, sociology, and psychology, the more dissonance you will notice in theories of economics. Take the chap at the beginning of the thread who took comfort knowing that voluntarism was reinforced by capitalist tenets. Has he thought through what "voluntary" actually means to a psychologist? Of course not. Do economists defer to ecologists on issues of natural resources? Or sociologists concerning the mental health of the community regarding their products? Does McDonalds consult the medical community to help fashion its extra malue menu?

Not true... You act as if economic theories are somehow incompatible with modern science... an abdsurdly wrong statement

Economics should be reinvented to rest atop the whole of social science (which in turn rests atop natural science), so that externalities to the equations do not manifest themselves in the destruction of our environment, culture, and health. Instead, economists lay claim to a fundamental position in the realm of scientific inquiry, which bypasses the whole of human knowledge and thus results in the problems we see before us now.

Should economic theories come to support more socialistic ideas?
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 8:12:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 7:51:50 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:48:47 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:30:01 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:27:15 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/3/2011 7:13:09 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 6:29:56 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Capitalism: a form of welfare in which the rich are paid for not working.

Did I leave anything out?

Ya, you left out the part where you understood anything about basic economics

As far as I can tell, basic economics starts with throwing out all other scientific disciplines.

No...

Oh, you' be surprised actually. The more you learn about physics, philosophy, ecology, sociology, and psychology, the more dissonance you will notice in theories of economics. Take the chap at the beginning of the thread who took comfort knowing that voluntarism was reinforced by capitalist tenets. Has he thought through what "voluntary" actually means to a psychologist? Of course not. Do economists defer to ecologists on issues of natural resources? Or sociologists concerning the mental health of the community regarding their products? Does McDonalds consult the medical community to help fashion its extra malue menu?

Not true... You act as if economic theories are somehow incompatible with modern science... an abdsurdly wrong statement

They are indeed incompatable. Economics does intimately embrace technology - for obvious reasons - but this is the exception.


Economics should be reinvented to rest atop the whole of social science (which in turn rests atop natural science), so that externalities to the equations do not manifest themselves in the destruction of our environment, culture, and health. Instead, economists lay claim to a fundamental position in the realm of scientific inquiry, which bypasses the whole of human knowledge and thus results in the problems we see before us now.

Should economic theories come to support more socialistic ideas?

I don't know.
Rob
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 8:48:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
i've got a definition! i think of it as how we've thrown a whole load of magical property representing coins over our shoulders and let war be had by the masses for them. and then governments are things we set up to try to regulate that money war in places. i'd think it clear the reason they're generally a joke.

capitalism = war.
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 8:58:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 8:48:47 AM, badger wrote:
i've got a definition! i think of it as how we've thrown a whole load of magical property representing coins over our shoulders and let war be had by the masses for them. and then governments are things we set up to try to regulate that money war in places. i'd think it clear the reason they're generally a joke.

capitalism = war.

as opposed to communism where we'd not have done something so kinda disgusting. you know, we might've, say, managed our resources all together or something? managed our numbers, our wants and our demands all together. rather than leave power of the world to the dudes who collected/inherited the most coins... i mean they could very possibly be incompetent or murderous wankers, right? i dunno... world resources sound to me as if they'd be something important to the world...
signature
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:20:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Data on income says otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also your criticism of economist is like criticizing physicists for not explaining why people behave a certain way. Your mixing apples and oranges.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:50:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

What I think he meant was, shareholders don't work.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:52:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

do you take issue with my definition?
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:53:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:50:49 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

What I think he meant was, shareholders don't work.

Where'd the money they used to buy the shares come from?

How did they avoid investing in worthless firms that lose them all their money if they didn't put any work into investment decisions?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:52:01 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

do you take issue with my definition?

Yes, it's frankly absurd. Capitalism prohibits the initiation of force. To violate capitalism requires a war of plunder.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:55:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:53:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:50:49 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

What I think he meant was, shareholders don't work.

Where'd the money they used to buy the shares come from?
Parents?

How did they avoid investing in worthless firms that lose them all their money if they didn't put any work into investment decisions?
Just imagine that they invest in only one company. Preferably a company where the CEO is working his a** off, doing overtime and all that jazz.

Of course, if the enterprise sinks, so does the investor's money. But who is doing the actual work?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:55:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:54:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:52:01 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

do you take issue with my definition?

Yes, it's frankly absurd. Capitalism prohibits the initiation of force. To violate capitalism requires a war of plunder.

how does capitalism prohibit it? that's what those governments i mentioned do i thought?
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:59:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:55:26 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:53:09 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:50:49 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

What I think he meant was, shareholders don't work.

Where'd the money they used to buy the shares come from?
Parents?
That's not "welfare" that's "How the parents chose to spend the money they earned." The heir is irrelevant to the capitalist system, he's a household pet of the creature that capitalism says gets to decide what to do with the money.


How did they avoid investing in worthless firms that lose them all their money if they didn't put any work into investment decisions?
Just imagine that they invest in only one company. Preferably a company where the CEO is working his a** off, doing overtime and all that jazz.
Then they take on significant risk, and still have to do enough work to figure out how badass the CEO is, and that he's not actually Bernie Madoff.


Of course, if the enterprise sinks, so does the investor's money. But who is doing the actual work?
Both parties. Without investors allocating capital based on likelihood of firm success, good business models will not tend to receive the necessary capital to begin operation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:59:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
or are we talking about some kinda non-aggression principle silliness or something like that again? we're just on about the way the world is, right? which is, at current, capitalistic i'd say. what besides governments prohibits force?
signature
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:00:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:55:56 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:54:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:52:01 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

do you take issue with my definition?

Yes, it's frankly absurd. Capitalism prohibits the initiation of force. To violate capitalism requires a war of plunder.

how does capitalism prohibit it? that's what those governments i mentioned do i thought?

Capitalism is an ideology about what government should do and what it should not do.

Governments do not follow capitalism consistently at present, and they initiate force on a regular basis.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:01:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:59:26 AM, badger wrote:
or are we talking about some kinda non-aggression principle silliness or something like that again? we're just on about the way the world is, right? which is, at current, capitalistic i'd say.
Absolutely false.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:04:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 12:00:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:55:56 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:54:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:52:01 AM, badger wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:49:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not only do CEOs work (massively overtime too quite often), but their work has a great effect on the success or failure of an enterprise.

do you take issue with my definition?

Yes, it's frankly absurd. Capitalism prohibits the initiation of force. To violate capitalism requires a war of plunder.

how does capitalism prohibit it? that's what those governments i mentioned do i thought?

Capitalism is an ideology about what government should do and what it should not do.

no, capitalism is how the world works besides government. and besides government, what prohibits force?

Governments do not follow capitalism consistently at present, and they initiate force on a regular basis.

fair enough. and wrongly in some instances i'd say too. the minarchists ain't so bad :P but what is capitalism? is it not that there's money in the world which represents the world which we compete for? what inherent prohibition of force exists there?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 12:06:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 12:01:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:59:26 AM, badger wrote:
or are we talking about some kinda non-aggression principle silliness or something like that again? we're just on about the way the world is, right? which is, at current, capitalistic i'd say.
Absolutely false.

nuh uh.. what differences would you make to government? to just abolish all aspects besides protection against physical force... same world. just government would probably be less corrupted by capital.
signature