What is Capitalism?

[Nakosis]

Money is simply a method of resource allocation.
Even socialist countries use/used it. This is because
resources are always limited & always in demand.
Can't just give everyone everything they want due
to massive inefficiency.
So even if it's called "credits", "resource allocation",
or "quatloos", whatever functions as money is money.

I'm assuming that some point in the future all basic needs will be taken care of. IOW no lack of resources.
Labor, production, management, healthcare, education. All of your needs and wants allocated for.
Trekonomics - Wikipedia

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So if you read my definition, you should be able to answer this.
That's why I provided a definition, so when we have a discussion, you know what I am talking about.

So I'm not treating it as a dogmatic fact. I'm treating it as a definition so you understand when I say something what I mean.
I don't have a problem with you doing the same. How else can we have a productive discussion?

Well, the problem is that a definition like theft is not an objective fact. It is a subjective interpretation.
But to understand other subjective interpretations you have to hold them as "valid" when you check them and not just invalid, because they don't meet your definition.

So for your definition of nothing in return, what is nothing in return.
Remember for digging holes and all that, we are talking about government and society as such.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm assuming that some point in the future all basic needs will be taken care of. IOW no lack of resources.
Labor, production, management, healthcare, education. All of your needs and wants allocated for.
Trekonomics - Wikipedia

Even Trekonomics has resource allocation.
Remember that there is more than just the basics
of life, eg, housing, food, health care. And in
the Star Trek universe, there has been crime & war
to gain resources. There's even money, eg, latinum,
Federation Credits, quatloos.
BTW, Trekonomics is fiction, like Das Kapital.
They're authors' dreams, but all dreams can become
a reality.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, the problem is that a definition like theft is not an objective fact. It is a subjective interpretation.
But to understand other subjective interpretations you have to hold them as "valid" when you check them and not just invalid, because they don't meet your definition.

So for your definition of nothing in return, what is nothing in return.
Remember for digging holes and all that, we are talking about government and society as such.

We've already agreed my definition is not an objective fact so no need to continue that dialog is there?

I can hold them as valid for you, no problem. As long as you provide a definition, we are good.

We're talking production or services which support production. So while the community/society/economy is providing both the hole digger/filler is providing neither.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We've already agreed my definition is not an objective fact so no need to continue that dialog is there?

I can hold them as valid for you, no problem. As long as you provide a definition, we are good.

We're talking production or services which support production. So while the community/society/economy is providing both the hole digger/filler is providing neither.

Yeah, I know. Let us stop it here. You have one understanding of economy and society and I have another.

 

[Nakosis]

Even Trekonomics has resource allocation.
Remember that there is more than just the basics
of life, eg, housing, food, health care. And in
the Star Trek universe, there has been crime & war
to gain resources. There's even money, eg, latinum,
Federation Credits, quatloos.
BTW, Trekonomics is fiction, like Das Kapital.
They're authors' dreams, but all dreams can become
a reality.

However, the "dream" per the link, money has become meaningless.
The first chapter focuses on the Star Trek's universe (primarily, the United Federation of Planets, or Federation for short) and the absence of currency in it. In a society where the economic problems have been overcome, money is meaningless.

Yes, dreams can become a reality.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, I know. Let us stop it here. You have one understanding of economy and society and I have another.

Well, I'd be interested in your understanding of the economy if you ever want to share.

 

[Revoltingest]

However, the "dream" per the link, money has become meaningless.
The first chapter focuses on the Star Trek's universe (primarily, the United Federation of Planets, or Federation for short) and the absence of currency in it. In a society where the economic problems have been overcome, money is meaningless.

Yes, dreams can become a reality.

The link reasons from the fiction of a moneyless
society. This doesn't make it real or potentially real.
If there wore no resource allocation, why doesn't
everyone have a starship? Why doesn't everyone
have a vineyard & chateau like Picard?
Trekonomics is predicated on people having limited
wants. That rquires suspending human nature, just
the same as Karl Marx did, & modern socialists do.

 

[Kfox]

That depends what they do with that money.

There's a concept in economics referred to as "the velocity of money", which is essentially a measure of the rate at which money circulates in a particular economy. Different groups can have a higher overall "velocity" than others. For example, the velocity of the income of a poor family is significantly higher than that of a wealthy one, because a larger proportion of the money they receive tends to be exchanged directly for goods and services.

To use your analogy, the rich man used their $100 to pay the poor man. This money simply went straight to the poor man. The poor man receives the $100 and uses it to pay their rent, which goes to their landlord; to pay for food, which goes to a local supermarket; to pay for a night out with friends, which goes to a local bar; to pay for a new computer, which goes to a PC manufacturer; and so on. And all of these transactions then filter through multiple more hands.

$100 in the hands of a wealthy man tends to have lower "velocity" than $100 in the hands of a poor man, because the poor man necessarily relies on that money being exchanged for goods and services more than a wealthy man, and after being exchanged for those goods and services it will then circulate to their employees, their supplier, etc.. The money tends circulate through the economy quicker once it's in the hands of the poor person than while it is in the hands of the wealthy person. This is kind of how wage-based economic models work. There are lots of examples of employers choosing to pay their workers higher wages and this ultimately resulting in a better overall economy, because the money circulates better.


They do. They are more likely to exchange the money for essential goods and services that then filter back into the economy than, say, to pay for an investment or to take the money abroad.


Actually, in economic terms, the value of someone with $100 who intends to spend it is very different to the value of $100 in the hands of someone who is either going to just hold on to it. The first person's money filters back into the economy, the second person's money doesn't.

I think you might be over thinking this a bit. Going by your findings, we could grow the economy if the rich would just give their money to the poor. Also; the rich man may invest the money in a way that it causes actual growth in the economy, or invest it in a business in a way that actually creates jobs and employs more people getting them off welfare and making them contributors to the system; but what someone chooses to do with the money is irrelevant to the point. The point is not about a how the rich spends money vs poor, the original scenario was about paying someone to dig a hole then fill it back up again, if this actually creates wealth; not circulate throughout the economy, but actually increase the size of the economic pie. This scenario doesn’t address who has more money or what they intend to do with it, it’s only about the act of paying someone to dig a hole. The simple act of digging a hole does not create wealth. If you disagree, explain why.

 

[Kfox]

Take #2: The problem in the end, is that science is not about what you, I or anybody else can refute individually. That is not how science works. And there is even more to science that just that.

We're not talking about science here, it's about the uselessness of digging a hole only to fill it back up

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you might be over thinking this a bit. Going by your findings, we could grow the economy if the rich would just give their money to the poor.

Not quite. The poor aren't poor as a category in and of themselves. They are defined as poor because of their relationship and access to wealth. To change that access or relationship would then make them no longer poor.

Also; the rich man may invest the money in a way that it causes actual growth in the economy, or invest it in a business in a way that actually creates jobs and employs more people getting them off welfare and making them contributors to the system;

This is also true, yes. But that doesn't mean that $100 in the hands of a wealthy person serves the same function the economy as the same amount in the hands of a poor person.

but what someone chooses to do with the money is irrelevant to the point. The point is not about a how the rich spends money vs poor, the original scenario was about paying someone to dig a hole then fill it back up again, if this actually creates wealth; not circulate throughout the economy, but actually increase the size of the economic pie. This scenario doesn’t address who has more money or what they intend to do with it, it’s only about the act of paying someone to dig a hole. The simple act of digging a hole does not create wealth. If you disagree, explain why.

Nah, I'd agree with you on this one. Unless the hole is actually producing something of value that exceeds the cost of the labour, it's not generating wealth.

 

[Kfox]

Again: this flows from your decision to measure the economic pie based on currency and not utility. This is a decision you ought to reflect on if you want your position to be rational.

That's because that is what this conversation is about! The size of the economic pie! Utility has nothing to do with this. Now if you wanna talk about utility, we can do that but that will be a completely different conversation.

 

[Nakosis]

The link reasons from the fiction of a moneyless
society. This doesn't make it real or potentially real.
If there wore no resource allocation, why doesn't
everyone have a starship? Why doesn't everyone
have a vineyard & chateau like Picard?
Trekonomics is predicated on people having limited
wants. That rquires suspending human nature, just
the same as Karl Marx did, & modern socialists do.

Oh, I imagine there will still be capitalism about.
Just with direct exchange.
Since everything else is taken care of, people can focus on the few things that they'd want without the need for an intermediary voucher.


The only thing Picard had was property. In the Trek universe, there are plenty of planets to allocate property to folks.
The vineyard's only value I'd imagine would be one of nostalgia which anyone who wanted to could replicate along with the chateau.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, I imagine there will still be capitalism about.
Just with direct exchange.

You mean bartering?
There's a very good reason that people don't do
that much anymore. And attempts to revive it
that I've run across avoid bartering by creating
a credit system....which is money.

Since everything else is taken care of, people can focus on the few things that they'd want without the need for an intermediary voucher.

You say people "can".
Not that people "will".

The only thing Picard had was property. In the Trek universe, there are plenty of planets to allocate property to folks.
The vineyard's only value I'd imagine would be one of nostalgia which anyone who wanted to could replicate along with the chateau.

The worst thing that ever happened to space
exploration &economics was Star Trek. It
created fantasies that people really believe...
- Space travel is cheap, safe, & convenient.
- Money will disappear when everyone has
everything they want.
- People will want only the basics in life.

 

[Kfox]

Nah, I'd agree with you on this one. Unless the hole is actually producing something of value that exceeds the cost of the labour, it's not generating wealth.

That is the exact point I made earlier. Sounds like we agree!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's because that is what this conversation is about! The size of the economic pie! Utility has nothing to do with this. Now if you wanna talk about utility, we can do that but that will be a completely different coconversation.

If you're unwilling to even recognize your choice of what to focus on as an actual choice, you're unlikely to have defensible reasons for that choice.

 

[Nakosis]

You mean bartering?
There's a very good reason that people don't do
that much anymore. And attempts to revive it
that I've run across avoid bartering by creating
a credit system....which is money.

You say people "can".
Not that people "will".

The worst thing that ever happened to space
exploration &economics was Star Trek. It
created fantasies that people really believe...
- Space travel is cheap, safe, & convenient.
- Money will disappear when everyone has
everything they want.
- People will want only the basics in life.

Ok, name something you think you wouldn't be able to get.
Remembering we now have replicator technology that can turn biowaste into a Tesla if you want it.

You can literally print all of the credits, vouchers, quatloos, whatever you wanted.
Not sure why you'd want to but if it makes you feel, um... something, go for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, name something you think you wouldn't be able to get.
Remembering we now have replicator technology that can turn biowaste into a Tesla if you want it.

Replicators can't make shuttles, ships, houses, land, dilithium,
latinum, anti-matter, living things, & more replicators.
The impossibility of replicators to make money (ie, latinum)
points to money still being in use.

You can literally print all of the credits, vouchers, quatloos, whatever you wanted.
Not sure why you'd want to but if it makes you feel, um... something, go for it.

Are you really basing a real economic
proposal on a fictional TV show?

 

[Kfox]

If you're unwilling to even recognize your choice of what to focus on as an actual choice, you're unlikely to have defensible reasons for that choice.

That makes no sense. I was just having a conversation with someone else about wealth vs value, and I mentioned creating wealth and half a dozen pages later, here we are. It's not like I'm unwilling to recognize anything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We're not talking about science here, it's about the uselessness of digging a hole only to fill it back up

Yeah and the other answer given to how it could be useful was developed by whom?

That makes no sense. I was just having a conversation with someone else about wealth vs value, and I mentioned creating wealth and half a dozen pages later, here we are. It's not like I'm unwilling to recognize anything.

So could you try so start be recognizing when some of us reference science and not how we think as individuals?