What is Capitalism?

[Kfox]

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.

Can you give an example of me doing this?

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.

When did I ever claim my politics was objective?

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.

I don’t pretend my version of fairness is objective, I am well aware it is completely subjective; it is based on my opinion. I invite you or anyone else who disagree with my subjective opinion to explain why you think I am wrong. What’s wrong with that?

 

[Kfox]

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.

Then why on post #89 when I asked you if agree someone running/owning a business is a capitalist, you responded No, capitalism is only an idea? Obviously if the person is running a business, he has put his idea into practice! So do you now agree a person running a business is a capitalist?

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

Then explain how wealth is created.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

You've been corrected a few times on why you're wrong about what "capitalism" means, so I won't belabour that point, but to answer your last question:

I suggest you google "rent-seeking behaviour." One article about it: What Is Rent Seeking in Economics, and What Are Some Examples?

Basically, it's when an entity like a company or individual seeks to increase their wealth without increasing productivity.

This could take the form of lobbying the government for legislative changes that benefit the company doing the lobbying, but it can also include things like:

- natural monopolies and monosonies using their position to manipulate the market

- large companies undercutting smaller competitors in the short term in order to drive them out of the market so they can increase prices in the long term

Many rent-seeking behaviours are technically voluntary (i.e. nobody's bejng compelled by law or has a gun to their head) but are manipulative and distort a free market equilibrium to the benefit of the one doing the manipulating.

 

[Soandso]

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?

Sure. It's me having a personal exchange with another person, or at least this person is legally recognized so even though he is a multi-billion dollar faceless conglomerate that manipulates the politicians that govern my life into helping him extract as much money as he can from me while cutting the product he gives me as much as the law allows - this product happens to be my health care, as well, for instance. Not a very nice deal for me. Great for the faceless entity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

A capitalist isn't just someone who owns their own business.

A capitalist is someone who has a large enough fortune that they can use their money as their main means to make more money through investments.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can you give an example of me doing this?

When did I ever claim my politics was objective?

I don’t pretend my version of fairness is objective, I am well aware it is completely subjective; it is based on my opinion. I invite you or anyone else who disagree with my subjective opinion to explain why you think I am wrong. What’s wrong with that?

You in effect say that somebody deserves something due to they have made it on their own. That is how I read your post, you may mean it as subjective, but it is presented as if it is how the world works. Is it a fact that say e.g. Jeff Bezos as himself produces wealth as him alone or are there more factors than him?

 

[PureX]

Then explain how wealth is created.

You are confusing wealth with value. Wealth is not created, it's amassed. Value is created by improving products and services beyond their cost in terms of expended energy and resources.

 

[metis]

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?

It makes 0 difference economically as to whether Joe Schmoe makes something or works in the service arena, as Joe gets paid and he spends money that goes into the "multiplier effect" economically. As Keynes said, even Joe digging a hole and filling it back up again stimulates the economy as long as he gets paid for it.

 

[Kfox]

A capitalist isn't just someone who owns their own business.

A capitalist is someone who has a large enough fortune that they can use their money as their main means to make more money through investments.

So your problem is not with the small guy using private ownership to make money, your problem is with the big guy doing it?
When the McDonalds brothers began with their first restaurant, you had no problem with them at that point, but somewhere from the point they had 1 store to the point of today where there are thousands of McDonalds around employing millions of people, NOW you have a problem with the CEO McDonalds because it is a big corporation, and the CEO is super rich?
When Sam Walton opened his first store, you had no problem with that; but now there are thousands of stores around and the Walton Family are super rich, now you have a problem? Is this your view? Or am I misunderstanding you.

 

[Kfox]

You in effect say that somebody deserves something due to they have made it on their own. That is how I read your post, you may mean it as subjective, but it is presented as if it is how the world works. Is it a fact that say e.g. Jeff Bezos as himself produces wealth as him alone or are there more factors than him?

When somebody does something, there are always other factors involved. Example; if me and my brother went to the lumber yard, bought a ton of wood, nails, and cement, mixed the cement, put nails to the wood and physically constructed a house, EVERYBODY witnessing this will say me and my brother built that house.
But did we really build this house? Technically the Lumber yard processed the wood, the Lumber Jack cut the trees down to be turned into wood, the Hardwood store sold us the nails, but somebody else is responsible for extracting iron ore from the ground to convert to steel in order to make the nails! So should all of these people involved get credit for building our house?

 

[Kfox]

You are confusing wealth with value.

In this case, value and wealth are the same thing. Value is anything considered valuable; wealth is value concerning economic resources.

Wealth is not created, it's amassed.

No. Even when you account for inflation, the economic resources (wealth) of this country had multiplied many times over in the last 100 years; the economic pie is larger. This is economic growth.

Value is created by improving products and services beyond their cost in terms of expended energy and resources.

And when that improved product is sold at a higher cost due to the improvements made, that is called creating wealth.

 

[Kfox]

It makes 0 difference economically as to whether Joe Schmoe makes something or works in the service arena, as Joe gets paid and he spends money that goes into the "multiplier effect" economically. As Keynes said, even Joe digging a hole and filling it back up again stimulates the economy as long as he gets paid for it.

Keynes is wrong IMO. That is just an example of wealth transferred from employer to employee. If the employer makes no money from Joe digging that hole, but still pays Joe for digging, that is only an example of money going from the employers pocket to Joe’s pocket. The only way wealth is made is if the employer can make more money off Joe digging the hole, than he paid Joe to dig it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When somebody does something, there are always other factors involved. Example; if me and my brother went to the lumber yard, bought a ton of wood, nails, and cement, mixed the cement, put nails to the wood and physically constructed a house, EVERYBODY witnessing this will say me and my brother built that house.
But did we really build this house? Technically the Lumber yard processed the wood, the Lumber Jack cut the trees down to be turned into wood, the Hardwood store sold us the nails, but somebody else is responsible for extracting iron ore from the ground to convert to steel in order to make the nails! So should all of these people involved get credit for building our house?

No, because the point is that your ability to do so, is not without a society as such.
If we are to debate this, them we are not debating single individuals as just that. Nor are we debating society as not made up of individuals.
We are taking into account all factors and not just some.

Let me try to explain it again. If you have a complex case of many factors, you are over-reducing it, if you only use of factor.
As far as I can tell all of your examples are about individuals as individuals. While that is a part of it, it is not all of it.

 

[PureX]

It makes 0 difference economically as to whether Joe Schmoe makes something or works in the service arena, as Joe gets paid and he spends money that goes into the "multiplier effect" economically. As Keynes said, even Joe digging a hole and filling it back up again stimulates the economy as long as he gets paid for it.

None of which matters. Stimulated economies are irrelevant to the quality of life of "Joe Schmoe". He is not being advantaged by how quickly or slowly money is being passed around within his society, or how much money is there, unless his access to it is increased along with the products and services that money can purchase. It's not about how much money is moving around and how quickly. It's about how many people are fully sharing in the movement, and how much value they can gain from it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your problem is not with the small guy using private ownership to make money, your problem is with the big guy doing it?
When the McDonalds brothers began with their first restaurant, you had no problem with them at that point, but somewhere from the point they had 1 store to the point of today where there are thousands of McDonalds around employing millions of people, NOW you have a problem with the CEO McDonalds because it is a big corporation, and the CEO is super rich?
When Sam Walton opened his first store, you had no problem with that; but now there are thousands of stores around and the Walton Family are super rich, now you have a problem? Is this your view? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Wow... you just kinda made a bunch of bad assumptions and took off running, eh?

Yes, you misunderstood me. None of that was in me simply defining "capitalism."

 

[Kfox]

Wow... you just kinda made a bunch of bad assumptions and took off running, eh?

Yes, you misunderstood me. None of that was in me simply defining "capitalism."

Okay; let me take this a bit slower. Is Walmart today an example of Capitalism?

 

[Kfox]

No, because the point is that your ability to do so, is not without a society as such.
If we are to debate this, them we are not debating single individuals as just that. Nor are we debating society as not made up of individuals.
We are taking into account all factors and not just some.

Let me try to explain it again. If you have a complex case of many factors, you are over-reducing it, if you only use of factor.
As far as I can tell all of your examples are about individuals as individuals. While that is a part of it, it is not all of it.

But you obviously have a problem with Jeff Bezos owning 15% of Amazon stock resulting in him becoming the richest guy in the world right?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you obviously have a problem with Jeff Bezos owning 15% of Amazon stock resulting in him becoming the richest guy in the world right?

No, not as such. I accept that there are rich people. It is more complex than that.

 

[metis]

Keynes is wrong IMO. That is just an example of wealth transferred from employer to employee. If the employer makes no money from Joe digging that hole, but still pays Joe for digging, that is only an example of money going from the employers pocket to Joe’s pocket. The only way wealth is made is if the employer can make more money off Joe digging the hole, than he paid Joe to dig it.

That's not how economic works, as the exchange of goods and services is what's the driving force economically. The fact that you question Keynes is quite telling.

 

[metis]

None of which matters. Stimulated economies are irrelevant to the quality of life of "Joe Schmoe". He is not being advantaged by how quickly or slowly money is being passed around within his society, or how much money is there, unless his access to it is increased along with the products and services that money can purchase. It's not about how much money is moving around and how quickly. It's about how many people are fully sharing in the movement, and how much value they can gain from it.

It's really both, but I agree with your main point.