What is Capitalism?

[Kfox]

That being said, I do have an issue with people keeping vast amounts of wealth and not using it to address immediate, basic human needs... though this probably gets into what's morally praiseworthy than what's morally obligatory.

What about people who sell their labor to employers but who are not donating any of it to address immediate, basic human needs? If Jeff Bezos has a moral obligation to donate some of his wealth to address immediate human needs, how come you are not under the same obligation to donate some of your labor to address these needs? Right now there are soup kitchens in town that are short on staff who feed the homeless; and instead of donating your labor right now, you are here on line pointing fingers at someone else who is doing the exact same thing you are doing! I think it was your Jesus who said something about pointing to the sliver in your neighbors eye while ignoring the beam in your own? Hummm…..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What about people who sell their labor to employers but who are not donating any of it to address immediate, basic human needs? If Jeff Bezos has a moral obligation to donate some of his wealth to address immediate human needs, how come you are not under the same obligation to donate some of your labor to address these needs?

I am under the same obligation: to pay back society proportionally to the benefit I've received.

i certainly haven't benefited as much as Jeff Bezos has, but what I've received is considerable.

Right now there are soup kitchens in town that are short on staff who feed the homeless; and instead of donating your labor right now, you are here on line pointing fingers at someone else who is doing the exact same thing you are doing! I think it was your Jesus who said something about pointing to the sliver in your neighbors eye while ignoring the beam in your own? Hum…..

What makes you think I don't donate my time or money to good causes?

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, here is something else.
I will go indirect.
For 2+2=4, 2+2=11, 2+2=5 and 2+2=∞ there are several answers possible due to different states of learning in different humans.
But here is where it get funny.
"Piaget believed that learning proceeded by the interplay of assimilation (adjusting new experiences to fit prior concepts) and accommodation (adjusting concepts to fit new experiences). The to-and-fro of these two processes leads not only to short-term learning, but also to long-term developmental change."
That last one is not that easy to learn to spot in your own learning, once you add that we humans like to be right.

Ok but Piaget had a pretty fixed set of stages he claimed everyone went through but we already talked about Piaget and schemas which I don't see a problem with unless you see these schemas creating an inflexibility on somebody's part.

Yeah, I know. That can't in any way, shape or form be connect to what we are debating, but it is. And that is how I bow out for now.
I do get him and yes, you would have to relearn how you learn, to learn to understand it differently as some of us do.

Myself, I like to be wrong. When I'm right, I don't really learn anything. You get stuck in whatever ideology you happen to have at that moment until something kicks you out of it.

So that's how I go about learning, be wrong, the wronger the better for learning and asking questions. Mostly questioning the standards that most would prefer everyone to accept and be done with it. It works for me. I can accept it doesn't work that way for everyone.

Kind of like how I learned to swim. Some folks go through a structured process. Someone leads them through a program were they take small steps, a little at a time with someone to guide and correct each step with the end result being a proficient swimmer. Whereas I just jumped in trying different motions until something worked.

Don't know if I'd get along in a structured education process were one size fits all. Questioning other folks standards tends to upset them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Capitalism is an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society.

The end goal of capitalism is to allow an economy that can best serve everyone's interest. Currently, this is being done by an agreement between parties on the value of the exchange of goods and services. You get what you want and I get what I want.

If we can create a society where everyone gets what they want, then that goal would be fulfilled.
The market price would basically get set to zero, which is perfectly in keeping with capitalist ideology.

That is to simple. You have left out the Tragedy of the Commons for one. And then are cases where some would say the market shouldn't be allowed alone. Health care is usually one such case.

Ok but Piaget had a pretty fixed set of stages he claimed everyone went through but we already talked about Piaget and schemas which I don't see a problem with unless you see these schemas creating an inflexibility on somebody's part.




Myself, I like to be wrong. When I'm right, I don't really learn anything. You get stuck in whatever ideology you happen to have at that moment until something kicks you out of it.

So that's how I go about learning, be wrong, the wronger the better for learning and asking questions. Mostly questioning the standards that most would prefer everyone to accept and be done with it. It works for me. I can accept it doesn't work that way for everyone.

Kind of like how I learned to swim. Some folks go through a structured process. Someone leads them through a program were they take small steps, a little at a time with someone to guide and correct each step with the end result being a proficient swimmer. Whereas I just jumped in trying different motions until something worked.

Don't know if I'd get along in a structured education process were one size fits all. Questioning other folks standards tends to upset them.

So now you could learn that your quote above, is too simple.
Then there is how you understand contract theory in regards to a society. Than can even be done for a libertarian society and turn that into a welfare state, even for your quote.

 

[Nakosis]

Never underestimate people's propensity
to want what they don't have.
But I agree the UBI will be necessary as
workers increasingly become unworthy
of what they cost employers.

Just curious.
How much of how you structure your post is done with the intent of riling someone?
Or is it purely innocent and I'm just projecting.

 

[Kfox]

I am under the same obligation: to pay back society proportionally to the benefit I've received.

i certainly haven't benefited as much as Jeff Bezos has,

How do you know? Maybe he just did much more with what he received than you did.

What makes you think I don't donate my time or money to good causes?

The same thing that makes you think Jeff Bezos doesn't donate any of his money to good causes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just curious.
How much of how you structure your post is done with the intent of riling someone?
Or is it purely innocent and I'm just projecting.

Structure isn't for annoying.
Was someone annoyed?
I dint intend it, but the result pleases me.

 

[metis]

Yeah; but the person who gave you the money don't have enough money to buy his own thing that would have stimulated the economy, he is preventing the economy from growing to the same extent that you are causing it to grow; canceling each other out.

You do not actually understand even the most basic Economics 101 with the "multiplier effect", so why should I waste more of my time?

 

[Revoltingest]

You do not actually understand even the most basic Economics 101 with the "multiplier effect", so why should I waste more of my time?

The myth of the "multiplier effect" is that applies
only to money taken from taxpayers, & spent by
government. When consumers & businesses
spend money, it too has that effect.
Money likes to be on the move. Sitting stationary,
it just loses value. But when spent or lent out, it
stays in motion, ie, others down the line use it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know? Maybe he just did much more with what he received than you did.

The thing about donating a few billion to charity is that it's hard to hide. It tends to make the news.

The same thing that makes you think Jeff Bezos doesn't donate any of his money to good causes.

I didn't say he doesn't donate any money; I said that he what he does donate isn't proportional to the benefit he received.

And we can tell this because he was (until his divorce) the richest person on Earth.

Anyone with "vanity spaceflight program" money has more "feed the poor" money that they can afford to give.

 

[Kfox]

You do not actually understand even the most basic Economics 101 with the "multiplier effect", so why should I waste more of my time?

The multiplier effect in a positive way does not apply to this situation; if you disagree explain why.

 

[Kfox]

The thing about donating a few billion to charity is that it's hard to hide. It tends to make the news.

I wasn’t talking about whether he donates billions to charity or not, I was talking about how much he received from society vs how much you received. Maybe he used his gifts from society more wisely than you did. Maybe he was just luckier than you; don’t assume because he has more than you that he was given more from society than you.
BTW Prince gave millions to various charities and causes in his City of Minneapolis under the name “love 4 one another” and nobody knew it was him till he died. Just because someone chooses to give, doesn’t mean they want everybody to know about it.

I didn't say he doesn't donate any money; I said that he what he does donate isn't proportional to the benefit he received.

It doesn’t have to be proportional; if he’s doing something and you’re doing nothing, he is doing more than you. And if you are doing something, are you gonna judge all of those who are not rich who aren’t doing anything at all? Or is your bigotry only directed at the rich.

 

[Nakosis]

That is to simple. You have left out the Tragedy of the Commons for one. And then are cases where some would say the market shouldn't be allowed alone. Health care is usually one such case.

You do know that not every common has collapsed from usage. Isn't obvious that overuse of resources is in no one's best interest?
Let alone the idea of capitalism.

If you can show the case were not leaving the market alone is in everybody's interest as in the case of healthcare then it wouldn't be a problem in capitalism. Especially with healthcare. We need everyone as healthy as possible to support the economy.

So now you could learn that your quote above, is too simple.
Then there is how you understand contract theory in regards to a society. Than can even be done for a libertarian society and turn that into a welfare state, even for your quote.

How can I learn for it?
By putting it out there, giving folks a chance to prove me wrong and addressing the feedback.

Since, I can't possibly predict every objection a person might come up with, I find it more effective to keep the post on the simple side and addressing the objections individually.

However, simple as it was, if you revisit what I said, you might see that your points were actually addressed.

 

[Nakosis]

Structure isn't for annoying.
Was someone annoyed?
I dint intend it, but the result pleases me.

Well, it made me smile.
Myself, I find such prose gives more interesting results.

 

[Kfox]

The myth of the "multiplier effect" is that applies
only to money taken from taxpayers, & spent by
government. When consumers & businesses
spend money, it too has that effect.
Money likes to be on the move. Sitting stationary,
it just loses value. But when spent or lent out, it
stays in motion, ie, others down the line use it.

Yeah; but in the context of this discussion, this assumes the person paying him to dig the hole was just gonna let the money sit if he didn't pay this guy to dig the hole. As far as we know, this guy was prevented from putting the money in circulation in an even more effective way had he not paid this guy to do something worthless, or the guy who dug the hole just blew it all at a casino.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah; but in the context of this discussion, this assumes the person paying him to dig the hole was just gonna let the money sit if he didn't pay this guy to dig the hole.

Even if not in circulation, the reduced money
supply has an anti-inflationary effect. Think
of the opposite of profligate printing of fiat
currency. But my in-expert opinion is that
it's better when spent.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ok, but why make them do useless work. Wouldn't it be better to just give them the money, and give them more time to do or find something that is actually productive to do.

You are basically stealing their time/labor. Not only from them but also the economy.

Not necessarily -- capitalism isn't concerned with "use," but with value.
The work might be "useless," but it isn't "valueless" because someone's willing to pay them to do it.

It's not "stealing" because the person is being compensated for their voluntary use of time and labor.

Consider:

In the Sherlock Holmes story "The Red-Headed League," Jabez Wilson is hired by the titular "League" to sit in their office every afternoon and do nothing but copy out the Encyclopedia Britannica -- for which he was paid 4 pounds a week (about 500 pounds/week in today's money, or roughly $621 for those of us who live in the colonies)

Wilson goes to Holmes to investigate the League after it suddenly closes one day and permanently disbands. Holmes is quick to note that Mr. Wilson is not the victim of any crime, since he was well-paid for his time, and gained an extensive knowledge of things that begin with the letter A.

Was his time and labor "stolen"? Holmes didn't think so, and neither do I. That's almost $2500/month for what amounts to a no-stress part time job... where do I sign up?

Of course, what might have seemed "useless" to you, I, or Jabez Wilson actually wasn't useless at all:

Spoiler: "The Red-Headed League":

Holmes figures out that the "Red-Headed League" offered Wilson the job just to get him out of his house every day, because the "League" was actually a group of bank robbers using his basement to dig a tunnel to the bank vault across the street.

Back to the point: Economics isn't based on "use," but on "value." And a thing or service is only ever as "valuable" as what you're willing to accept for it.

 

[Stevicus]

At best, it is a band-aid to cover the problem.
It doesn't itself grow the economy, but it can temporarily stop the blood flow.

A economy requires the creation of services and products. Without that, there is no growth.
So you can cover the wound but you are not really healing it.
In the end you are going to have to keep supplying bandages.

Bandages aren't free though. Someone has to make the bandage, someone has to supply the materials. So really you are subtracting from the economy. The only way you can really grow the economy, heal the wound, is by the creation of products and services that support the production of product.

Hopefully a government can do more than just supply bandages. Otherwise they are just hiding the blood and hoping folks will think everything is ok.

Also, why make them "dig holes and fill them"? Why not just give them the money?

I would say that anything does not have any kind of tangible utility would amount to the same thing. That's why some people might look at bourgeois luxuries as being just as useless as paying someone to dig a hole and fill it in again.

The entertainment industry might qualify along those lines. One receives absolutely nothing of useful value from watching people dance on a stage or play a game on a field. You get nothing tangible in return for your money, and there's no permanency to it either. You can't eat it or put it on a shelf. If you wanted a video of the event, you'd have to pay extra for it. All you might get is a temporary thrill from watching an event in person, but it would be fleeting, with no intrinsic value.

Or another example might be a million-dollar bottle of wine which gets sold and resold, but no one will ever drink it. Where is the value to that? Where is the economic growth?

 

[Nakosis]

I would say that anything does not have any kind of tangible utility would amount to the same thing. That's why some people might look at bourgeois luxuries as being just as useless as paying someone to dig a hole and fill it in again.

The entertainment industry might qualify along those lines. One receives absolutely nothing of useful value from watching people dance on a stage or play a game on a field. You get nothing tangible in return for your money, and there's no permanency to it either. You can't eat it or put it on a shelf. If you wanted a video of the event, you'd have to pay extra for it. All you might get is a temporary thrill from watching an event in person, but it would be fleeting, with no intrinsic value.

Or another example might be a million-dollar bottle of wine which gets sold and resold, but no one will ever drink it. Where is the value to that? Where is the economic growth?

Yes, it is certainly not economic growth. It'd be like taking all of your money and stuffing it in your mattress. No one becomes wealthy by taking their money out of the economy. Capitalism requires active participation. Though not quite as bad as causing an imbalance by artificially inflating the money supply.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say that anything does not have any kind of tangible utility would amount to the same thing. That's why some people might look at bourgeois luxuries as being just as useless as paying someone to dig a hole and fill it in again.

The entertainment industry might qualify along those lines. One receives absolutely nothing of useful value from watching people dance on a stage or play a game on a field. You get nothing tangible in return for your money, and there's no permanency to it either.

Entertainment, eg, books, movies, sports TV, games,
have value despite being intangible. Many other things
have intangible value that people will pay hard cash for,
eg, psychological counseling, engineering consulting
services, museums. This is so even in socialist countries,
where there is more to life than cobbling shoes, growing
wheat, & manufacturing gunships.