What is Capitalism?

[Revoltingest]

You donlt seem to understand what investment capital is.

 

[Kfox]

You donlt seem to understand what investment capital is.

How did you make that leap of (il)logic?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Capitalism is simply voluntary exchange, nothing more. Why are so many people against it? What is Capitalism to you? To me, it is really simple and not immoral at all. How can voluntary exchange be wrong?

I think its how capitalism is used that creates the problems.

Especially when buying and selling politicians to make favorable laws and regulations to benefit the purchaser through corporations are people BS.

 

[PureX]

How did you make that leap of (il)logic?

You posted: "The vast majority of capitalists are not rich, wealthy, or have more than they need."

One can't invest capital that they have to spend on their survival because they have to spend it on their survival. Hence, investment capital is only available to those who have more than they need to live. You didn't seem to understand this.

 

[Kfox]

You posted: "The vast majority of capitalists are not rich, wealthy, or have more than they need."

One can't invest capital that they have to spend on their survival because they have to spend it on their survival. Hence, investment capital is only available to those who have more than they need to live. You didn't seem to understand this.

Do you agree anyone who runs/owns a business is a capitalist? Even small businesses like the mom & pop store, or the mini mart down the street?
If not explain why you disagree.
If you agree, are you aware approx 50% of all businesses fail within the first 5 years?
That means there are an awful lot of capitalists who are about to go out of business, or are barely getting by. Not all capitalists are like Gates, Bezos, or Buffet. You don't seem to understand this.

 

[Kfox]

I think its how capitalism is used that creates the problems.

Especially when buying and selling politicians to make favorable laws and regulations to benefit the purchaser through corporations are people BS.

Over 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. There are also countless numbers of people who are harmed by crimes committed using cars. People rob banks or stores and get away with a car, gangs kill via drive-by shootings on a regular basis; yet if we got rid of all cars, we wouldn’t have those problems. Yet you would be hard pressed to find someone saying we should get rid of all cars. After all; its how cars are used that causes the problems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Over 30,000 people die from automobile accidents every year. There are also countless numbers of people who are harmed by crimes committed using cars. People rob banks or stores and get away with a car, gangs kill via drive-by shootings on a regular basis; yet if we got rid of all cars, we wouldn’t have those problems. Yet you would be hard pressed to find someone saying we should get rid of all cars. After all; its how cars are used that causes the problems.

Ok... um...Maybe politictions and CEOs need bumpers, headlights, and tail lights, so we can see them coming and going.

 

[wellwisher]

Who said they were negative? Personally, I’d say they were problematic for a number of reasons, but that’s not to say the problems are insurmountable.

Put simply, capitalism allows - indeed, encourages - private owners of the means of production, distribution and exchange, to profit from the labour of others. If I invest money in an enterprise, with the intention of taking out more than I put in, where does the take-out come from? It comes from someone else’s hard work.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game, where there is a fixed pool of money that we all fight over. Capitalism allows the creation of new wealth, allowing the economy to become an increasing sum game; if there is such a term. The GNP grows each year, even during times when unemployment or inflation is not optimized. The reason is, new ideas and new businesses create new value, which then adds to the old sum. Making money and creating wealth is similar to life, replicating and multiplying. Capitalism is organic down deep; it multiplies.

A zero sum game; fixed amount that does not grow, is analogous to inanimate matter, such as a pile of rocks that is fixed, so there is a battle for getting the most rocks wit some people left out. But Capitalism is more like grass or hay, which multiplies and even spreads, allowing some to collect more hay, without taking away the share of another; reap the surplus.

For example, the rise of the home computers in the late 1990's, due to Windows 98, added a new product category to the market, that previously had little need or demand. It entrance into the economy did not steal from anyone. If created a new demand because of the value of the new product and the potential wealth added to the bigger economic pot. This demand created scores of new high paying jobs, made billionaires overnight, which added even more wages and disposable income; growing sum game and a larger overall pot of money; GNP.

When people saw the value of home computers, more people now wanted computers. Other people see the opportunity for a new area of profit and started all the support businesses; video cards, antivirus software, monitors, printers, etc. Among each support class, competition also happened due to the demand and profit. This added jobs and and caused the quality to increase and prices to fall. Today the cheapest cell phone has more computer power than the first home PC's, at about 10% the cost to the consumer. Competition not only makes resource more efficient, but is how value is also added to the consumer demand and spending.

The biggest problem with Capitalism is the Government. The Government model in the USA, is based on a zero sum game. It is actually a negative sum game due to the large deficits. In a zero sum game, one has a certain level of annual funding; revenue and borrowing, and everyone in the bureaucracy wants a piece of that fixed pie. Government, especially in the USA, does not know how to create wealth, since this a not an organic method. Problems arise when those, who live by the rules of the zero sum game, interfere in the economy, by assuming it is also a zero sum game; rich take more than there share with no idea about the creation of wealth as an offset. This erroneous assumption is a projection of government and often used by the Left, to justify the dumb down of the economy, into something less alive and less efficient.

The philosophy of waste and greed, which is the nature of the US government, filters into the economy through legislature. Today, one can see the economic hardship government has created for its own people. Green energy for example, is not growing in an organic way. It is driven by the zero sum game of government boneheads, who cannot balance a check book, to boost it their political side of the perceived zero sum game. This harms competitive industries and the consumer. The entire economy should be growing; all aspects adding to the sum, but those who play the zero and negative sum games are like a virus, that makes a healthy cell, sick; added too much stone dust to the field of hay.

 

[PureX]

Do you agree anyone who runs/owns a business is a capitalist?

No. They are simply the capital investor in the business. Capitalism is an ideal. It's the ideal that the capital investor should have sole control over the commercial enterprise that's being invested in. To be a capitalist you must by definition be a proponent of that ideal. There are plenty of poverty stricken capitalists in America. They are not investors, they're just too ignorant to understand that capitalism is mostly WHY they are poverty stricken. And they foolishly imagine that via capitalism they will someday escape their poverty. They won't, of course, because the wealthy capitalists have no intention of ever letting them. And they have the power in our culture to stop them.

Even small businesses like the mom & pop store, or the mini mart down the street?

That kind of capital investment tends to be far more responsive to the other people involved in it's commercial enterprise (socialist) because it is small, and personal, and is therefor less 'capitalist' than the larger commercial enterprise. The bigger the business enterprise gets, the more distance there is between the investors (controllers) and everyone else involved in the enterprise, and the more the investor's greed becomes the ruling agenda. It's very easy for the CEO of MegaGreedyCorp to make corporate decisions that exploit and harm the workers, consumers, communities and the environment that they engage with, in the name of increased profits to the investors, when they never have to actually see or face the harm they are doing because of these greed based decisions. It's why the bigger these commercial enterprises become, the more socially toxic they become. Not just because they are so much more powerful, but also because they are so divorced form the immoral effects they foster at 'ground level'.

If not explain why you disagree.
If you agree, are you aware approx 50% of all businesses fail within the first 5 years?

Most of them fail because the bigger commercial enterprises are able to drive them out of the markets. And the bigger commercial enterprises don't care about the negative effects that has on society and on real people. All they care about is maximizing the profits being returned to their own capital investors. And it's very easy for them not to care about the damage they do to society because they get big fat bonusses and huge salaries for doing it, and they never have to actually see or take any responsibility for the harm.

Partly because people like you defend them at every turn.

That means there are an awful lot of capitalists who are about to go out of business, or are barely getting by. Not all capitalists are like Gates, Bezos, or Buffet. You don't seem to understand this.

And you still don't understand that capitalism is an ideology. An ideology that is socially toxic because its based on serving individual greed instead of societal welfare.

 

[PureX]

Capitalism is not a zero sum game, where there is a fixed pool of money that we all fight over.

Pretty close to it, though. Considering the increase in wealth being generated is usually in the single digit percentages. And considering that nearly all of that is being swallowed up every year by a small group of already extremely wealthy people and corporations. The economy is not exactly a zero sum system, but it's pretty damn close, effectively speaking. Especially when you're not a member of the wealthiest 2% of the population that are swallowing up that generated increase.

 

[metis]

The philosophy of waste and greed, which is the nature of the US government, filters into the economy through legislature.

And the worst is in the area of defense expenditures, so should we eliminate all defense contracts and the military itself?

 

[Kfox]

No. They are simply the capital investor in the business. Capitalism is an ideal.

If capitalism were only an idea, there would be no such a thing as a rich capitalist. The fact that you recognize there are rich capitalists proves your claim wrong. No my friend; capitalism is a practice! Anyone running/owning a business; big or small is practicing capitalism.

It's the ideal that the capital investor should have sole control over the commercial enterprise that's being invested in. To be a capitalist you must by definition be a proponent of that ideal.

If that were true, Bernie Sanders would not be as rich as he is.

That kind of capital investment tends to be far more responsive to the other people involved in it's commercial enterprise (socialist) because it is small, and personal, and is therefor less 'capitalist' than the larger commercial enterprise.

Who are these other people these mom & pop store owners more involved in?

The bigger the business enterprise gets, the more distance there is between the investors (controllers) and everyone else involved in the enterprise, and the more the investor's greed becomes the ruling agenda. It's very easy for the CEO of MegaGreedyCorp to make corporate decisions that exploit and harm the workers, consumers, communities and the environment that they engage with, in the name of increased profits to the investors,

But in the real world, it is usually those mom & pop stores where wages are lowest, health insurance, and retirement unheard of, and unions not allowed, and the MegaGreedyCorp usually have livable wages, retirement, insurance, and better working conditions.

Most of them fail because the bigger commercial enterprises are able to drive them out of the markets. And the bigger commercial enterprises don't care about the negative effects that has on society and on real people.

No. Most small business fail is due to bad ideas, or an inability to compete against other business; not someone bigger driving them out of business.

 

[Kfox]

Ok... um...Maybe politictions and CEOs need bumpers, headlights, and tail lights, so we can see them coming and going.

No; my point is that capitalism is not the problem you describe, it's crooked people using their influence in an unfair way that is the problem.

 

[Kfox]

Pretty close to it, though. Considering the increase in wealth being generated is usually in the single digit percentages. And considering that nearly all of that is being swallowed up every year by a small group of already extremely wealthy people and corporations. The economy is not exactly a zero sum system, but it's pretty damn close, effectively speaking. Especially when you're not a member of the wealthiest 2% of the population that are swallowing up that generated increase.

That 2% you speak of swallowing up most of that wealth is creating ALL of that wealth. The fact that they create all of it but only swallow most of it means it is better that they create the wealth and swallow most of it leaving crumbs for everybody else than to not create anything at all resulting in nothing for everybody else.

Obviously I am speaking hyperbole in the above statement. Wealth creators don’t take most of the wealth they create leaving crumbs for everyone else, but they do take a large share compared to everyone else. The way Bezos became the richest man in the world was by creating Amazon, he kept 15% of the shares for himself (leaving 85% for everyone else) and when Amazon became a trillion dollar company, his worth became 1/15th of a trillion making him the richest man in the world. But still; though he made a lot of money for himself, he made much much more for everybody else.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No; my point is that capitalism is not the problem you describe, it's crooked people using their influence in an unfair way that is the problem.

You pretty much just described capitalism in practice.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That 2% you speak of swallowing up most of that wealth is creating ALL of that wealth. The fact that they create all of it but only swallow most of it means it is better that they create the wealth and swallow most of it leaving crumbs for everybody else than to not create anything at all resulting in nothing for everybody else.

Obviously I am speaking hyperbole in the above statement. Wealth creators don’t take most of the wealth they create leaving crumbs for everyone else, but they do take a large share compared to everyone else. The way Bezos became the richest man in the world was by creating Amazon, he kept 15% of the shares for himself (leaving 85% for everyone else) and when Amazon became a trillion dollar company, his worth became 1/15th of a trillion making him the richest man in the world. But still; though he made a lot of money for himself, he made much much more for everybody else.

This is nonsense. The wealth the 1% have amassed comes not from their labour, but from that of the workers they employ. Bezos didn’t make anything, distribute anything, or deliver anything; Amazon’s legions of poorly paid workers did all that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That 2% you speak of swallowing up most of that wealth is creating ALL of that wealth. The fact that they create all of it but only swallow most of it means it is better that they create the wealth and swallow most of it leaving crumbs for everybody else than to not create anything at all resulting in nothing for everybody else.

Obviously I am speaking hyperbole in the above statement. Wealth creators don’t take most of the wealth they create leaving crumbs for everyone else, but they do take a large share compared to everyone else. The way Bezos became the richest man in the world was by creating Amazon, he kept 15% of the shares for himself (leaving 85% for everyone else) and when Amazon became a trillion dollar company, his worth became 1/15th of a trillion making him the richest man in the world. But still; though he made a lot of money for himself, he made much much more for everybody else.

Okay, here is the problem, if I recall your position correct. You demand objective evidence, when it suits you, but you don't understand, when you claim something that is without objective evidence.
So a very simple example. You and I are looking at a cat and observing that it has a color of being orange/red like. That it has the color, is objective.
Now I say that I have a 100$ bill in my pocket and it is mine. That is not objective. That is a social construct. The bill has no property of being mine, but the cat has a property of being orange/red like.
The moment you treat your politics as objective, all debate stops, because you don't allow for different social constructs. You only accept yours.

So here is the joke. Take Jeff Bezos and place him alone in say a forest with enough natural resources to survive, if he knows how to do that. He would survive but he would never become the richest man on earth.
He is that because of in the end luck. He was lucky enough to have a combination of nature and nurture in a culture that allowed for him to become that, but he couldn't do it on his own.
And now it comes. There are no objective evidence for any version of fair and what makes a society fair. But as long as you in effect treat your version as if it has objective evidence, this debate will get nowhere.

 

[PureX]

If capitalism were only an idea, there would be no such a thing as a rich capitalist. The fact that you recognize there are rich capitalists proves your claim wrong. No my friend; capitalism is a practice! Anyone running/owning a business; big or small is practicing capitalism.

This is silly. It's obviously an ideal that we can choose to put into practice. Just as socialism is an idea that we can choose to put into practice. You're wasting time arguing for the sake of arguing, here.

 

[PureX]

That 2% you speak of swallowing up most of that wealth is creating ALL of that wealth. The fact that they create all of it but only swallow most of it means it is better that they create the wealth and swallow most of it leaving crumbs for everybody else than to not create anything at all resulting in nothing for everybody else.

Obviously I am speaking hyperbole in the above statement. Wealth creators don’t take most of the wealth they create leaving crumbs for everyone else, but they do take a large share compared to everyone else. The way Bezos became the richest man in the world was by creating Amazon, he kept 15% of the shares for himself (leaving 85% for everyone else) and when Amazon became a trillion dollar company, his worth became 1/15th of a trillion making him the richest man in the world. But still; though he made a lot of money for himself, he made much much more for everybody else.

Investors are not "wealth creators". That's just an absurd lie made up and promoted by wealthy capitalists to excuse their own inmitigated greed.

The increased value results from the collective efforts of those doing the work of physically improving products and services to make them deliver greater value for the sameor lesser expense. If anything, the capital investor detracts from that process of increasing value by demanding that the capital invested to enable it return a profit. But of course they aren't happy with just a profit. Thay want ALL the profit generated by that increased value.

 

[Kfox]

This is nonsense. The wealth the 1% have amassed comes not from their labour, but from that of the workers they employ.

People get rich by creating something of value; labor need not be involved. Look at Facebook. How much physical labor is actually required for Facebook? How much value is generated by it?

Bezos didn’t make anything, distribute anything, or deliver anything; Amazon’s legions of poorly paid workers did all that.

Amazon is a service. The people employed by Amazon are a part of that service. Also; nothing you've said here refutes anything I’ve said.