Capitalist/capitalism

[danielpalos]

For the erudite who pretend an esoteric, if not novel, endeavor.

Capitalist is participant in a system as old as time- capitalism- humans have been bartering since one discovered another had something he wanted and was willing to trade something he had for it and the involved party's agreed to an exchange. That is capitalist, using capitalism to benefit the involved. Period. It ain't rocket science- and it ain't esoteric- IMproper education, brought to you by ILL informed opinionaters have led millions down a path filled with, well, opinion, based on bias and prejudice, usually political, and gained a reward, sometimes financially- that, dear readers (as few of you as there are) is capitalism- the involved party's are capitalist. Period. Their politics is immaterial.

There are those, in any gathering of humans (and sometime animals, but, less so) who would rather take what they don't own, by force, threat of force, coercion, intimidation, etc.- yes, they're rewarded, financially, or with property acquisition- btw, financial is property- so STFU- those are criminals- writing laws doesn't make it moral- theft (see the previous) is immoral. Period. That isn't capitalism, though it is exercised by capitalist- communism, an economic theory, exercised by humans, does exactly what is the immoral, as do those claiming a moral high ground; republic or democracy, or theocratic, or monarchy- except, in a monarchy, or communist environment, the state controls all the economic activity, enFORCED with the previously mentioned, which are a trademark of our US gov't-

Our monetary system, in the US, is part Keynesean theory, designed for the British Monarchy, mixed with capitalism, enforced by communist/fascist tactics- that is called Statist- it has nothing to do with the monetary system, capitalism. It is financed, in our case, by Borrow to Spend, top down economics, i.e. Keynesean theory designed for the British Monarchy, by a British subject, John Maynard Keynes.

In the US, Reagan coined, Trickle Down Economics- same same- but, ANY economic system has to be initiated/financed by the bearer (holder) of the tool (in modern times, money) provides the tool and the incentive to use it (see above means of incentive, laws)- in today's world, that holder (bearer) is the Federal Reserve. It creates the tools (numbers on a computer screen) out of thin air, the US gov't Borrows it and spends it lending it value- the system, is capitalism/Statist and has created a system, within itself called Crony Capitalism, for good reason- but, in a Communist society it would be called Crony Communism- same same- enFORCMENT uses the same tactics, laws- to threaten, coerce, intimidate and steal what doesn't belong to it-

This is a bit of the tip of the ice berg and I'm sure eyes have already glazed over and/or turned away, which is indicative of stupid and not desirous of expanding/evolving a knowledge-

True Capitalism requires the need for profit..bartering does not involve that..just an equal trade of value. One of the biggest pitfalls of capitalism is that it by nature, fosters greed.

Greed can be Good under Capitalism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Click the link.

What link?

These funny words with underlines are known as "links;" click on them and magic things happen.

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125515/1366_KeynesTheoryofEmployment.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

what you posted is not correct. I explained most of it and why.

What I posted are my observations- IDGAF what a link (that I don't see says)- where are my observations inaccurate? 2+2 = 4 or someone is lying- and it ain't me-

The link is the full text of Keynes' General Theory. You CLEARLY have never read it. I also suspect you have not read Friedman, Von Mises, Rothbard, or Laffer.

Your "observations" are not founded on anything. Where are the wrong? I already stated, but to further clarify, you state:

{ Our monetary system, in the US, is part Keynesean theory, designed for the British Monarchy, mixed with capitalism, enforced by communist/fascist tactics- that is called Statist- it has nothing to do with the monetary system, capitalism. It is financed, in our case, by Borrow to Spend, top down economics, i.e. Keynesean theory designed for the British Monarchy, by a British subject, John Maynard Keynes. }

Now that is just plain wrong. As I pointed out before, our monetary system was established before Keynes was a known entity. And Keynes did not focus heavily on monetary policy per se' - that is subjects such as equilibrium of fiat currency in proportion to goods and services are mentioned, as they would be in any economic study, but they are not the driver. Keynes focuses much more on central government economic policies. When Keynes argues for stimulus, he proposes government BORROW money in deficit spending. This is different than the monetary policy of quantitative easing which would flood the market with fiat currency.

Further the idea that Keynes leaned toward the monarchy makes no sense. He supports manipulated markets to regulate the business cycle. Keynes sought to control the boom and bust cycle of markets through government spending and civil works programs. While I disagree with Keynes on his approach and his conclusions, this has nothing to do with monarchy and is based on governmental manipulation of markets.

You do not accurately represent Keynes, nor to you provide any substantive argument. What you wrote is not economically sound - from any perspective. While I lean to Austrian or neo-Austrian schools of thought, the best refutation of Keynes comes from Milton Friedman, who utterly destroys Keynes.

Here is another LINK where he does so;

https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/58.1.1-17.pdf

 

[Uncensored2008]

The private sector engages in "free market capitalism".

No, it doesn't- it engages in restricted capitalism (with the value of the tool decided by an outsider [the fed reserve] in restricted markets- free is unencumbered- laws, by definition, encumber- in our case they severely restrict competition and trade, to what the fed gov't allows, through the erroneous defense of treaties or, the War on Drugs (which encourages pure capitalism, which is what the US gov't despises and hates for the competition in it's ill perceived authority [to itself] is a product of) - that is NOT in the constituion- it is, in fact, contrary to the original intent of RE PRESENT A TIVES (which was to ensure one did not have legal [official] advantage over another)- nor is it free, nor is enterprise either- they are highly restricted, by Crony Capitalist- pay to play, is the name of the game- Crony Capitalism.

The federal reserve, which regulates monetary policy by setting interest rates and the levels of currency would set value exactly how?

The most the fed could do is temporarily influence value through inflationary flooding, but the market will adjust, because currency isn't value.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The link is the full text of Keynes' General Theory. You CLEARLY have never read it. I also suspect you have not read Friedman, Von Mises, Rothbard, or Laffer.

Your "observations" are not founded on anything. Where are the wrong? I already stated, but to further clarify, you state:

{ Our monetary system, in the US, is part Keynesean theory, designed for the British Monarchy, mixed with capitalism, enforced by communist/fascist tactics- that is called Statist- it has nothing to do with the monetary system, capitalism. It is financed, in our case, by Borrow to Spend, top down economics, i.e. Keynesean theory designed for the British Monarchy, by a British subject, John Maynard Keynes. }

Now that is just plain wrong. As I pointed out before, our monetary system was established before Keynes was a known entity. And Keynes did not focus heavily on monetary policy per se' - that is subjects such as equilibrium of fiat currency in proportion to goods and services are mentioned, as they would be in any economic study, but they are not the driver. Keynes focuses much more on central government economic policies. When Keynes argues for stimulus, he proposes government BORROW money in deficit spending. This is different than the monetary policy of quantitative easing which would flood the market with fiat currency.

Further the idea that Keynes leaned toward the monarchy makes no sense. He supports manipulated markets to regulate the business cycle. Keynes sought to control the boom and bust cycle of markets through government spending and civil works programs. While I disagree with Keynes on his approach and his conclusions, this has nothing to do with monarchy and is based on governmental manipulation of markets.

You do not accurately represent Keynes, nor to you provide any substantive argument. What you wrote is not economically sound - from any perspective. While I lean to Austrian or neo-Austrian schools of thought, the best refutation of Keynes comes from Milton Friedman, who utterly destroys Keynes.

Here is another LINK where he does so;

https://www.aeaweb.org/aer/top20/58.1.1-17.pdf

I agree with you that Gdjjr woefully misunderstands Keynes and all of modern economic theory. As another commenter points out his primitive definition of “capitalism” seems to extend back to pure barter relations in a system without money or capital relations. It is sort of a manic ultra “radical libertarian” economic theory fitting pre-industrial, or even pre-agricultural tribal society. Government itself seems the enemy in his view.

You're clearly familiar with modern economic theory, leaning to “Austrian or neo-Austrian schools of thought.” You describe yourself as a “radical libertarian” who accepts Milton Friedman’s critique of Keynes. Fair enough. I haven’t worked my way carefully through all the theoretical economic works of Keynes or Hayek or Friedman. I am more interested in the “political economy” of the “dismal science” in any case.

I liked Keynes mostly because he had a good grasp of the real economic and political situation before, during and after WWII. He often wryly admitted the limitations of even his own “High Priestly” “Anglo-American” economic theory, and his theories evolved. But his core concerns with “general and aggregate theory” and the points he addressed were central modern ones, and his experience as an economist of a fading imperial empire (he worked first in British India) gave him special insights, useful even today for our own slowly declining dollar empire.

Personally I think narrow monetarist views regarding regulating today’s U.S. economy will always prove ineffective. We live in a world where competing forms of state capitalism and Federal Reserve “crony capitalism” are leading us to new Cold (perhaps hot) Wars. “Radical libertarianism” — as useful and important as it may be in defending individual freedom and liberty rights — doesn’t seem to me a very useful tool for dealing with macro-economic and political crisis, or for addressing likely pending ecological disasters either.

 

[Rigby5]

For the erudite who pretend an esoteric, if not novel, endeavor.

Capitalist is participant in a system as old as time- capitalism- humans have been bartering since one discovered another had something he wanted and was willing to trade something he had for it and the involved party's agreed to an exchange. That is capitalist, using capitalism to benefit the involved. Period. It ain't rocket science- and it ain't esoteric- IMproper education, brought to you by ILL informed opinionaters have led millions down a path filled with, well, opinion, based on bias and prejudice, usually political, and gained a reward, sometimes financially- that, dear readers (as few of you as there are) is capitalism- the involved party's are capitalist. Period. Their politics is immaterial.

There are those, in any gathering of humans (and sometime animals, but, less so) who would rather take what they don't own, by force, threat of force, coercion, intimidation, etc.- yes, they're rewarded, financially, or with property acquisition- btw, financial is property- so STFU- those are criminals- writing laws doesn't make it moral- theft (see the previous) is immoral. Period. That isn't capitalism, though it is exercised by capitalist- communism, an economic theory, exercised by humans, does exactly what is the immoral, as do those claiming a moral high ground; republic or democracy, or theocratic, or monarchy- except, in a monarchy, or communist environment, the state controls all the economic activity, enFORCED with the previously mentioned, which are a trademark of our US gov't-

Our monetary system, in the US, is part Keynesean theory, designed for the British Monarchy, mixed with capitalism, enforced by communist/fascist tactics- that is called Statist- it has nothing to do with the monetary system, capitalism. It is financed, in our case, by Borrow to Spend, top down economics, i.e. Keynesean theory designed for the British Monarchy, by a British subject, John Maynard Keynes.

In the US, Reagan coined, Trickle Down Economics- same same- but, ANY economic system has to be initiated/financed by the bearer (holder) of the tool (in modern times, money) provides the tool and the incentive to use it (see above means of incentive, laws)- in today's world, that holder (bearer) is the Federal Reserve. It creates the tools (numbers on a computer screen) out of thin air, the US gov't Borrows it and spends it lending it value- the system, is capitalism/Statist and has created a system, within itself called Crony Capitalism, for good reason- but, in a Communist society it would be called Crony Communism- same same- enFORCMENT uses the same tactics, laws- to threaten, coerce, intimidate and steal what doesn't belong to it-

This is a bit of the tip of the ice berg and I'm sure eyes have already glazed over and/or turned away, which is indicative of stupid and not desirous of expanding/evolving a knowledge-

Strongly disagree.
Barter is NOT capitalism at all, in any way.
Barter is a mutual exchange, and has no profit.
Capitalism is about increasing the value of your holdings, being it material or currency, and not by labor.
In fact, the whole point of capitalism is to do nothing at all, and to profit through some devious manipulation of the exchange, such as holding a monopoly on goods essential to survival.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Strongly disagree.
Barter is NOT capitalism at all, in any way.
Barter is a mutual exchange, and has no profit.
Capitalism is about increasing the value of your holdings, being it material or currency, and not by labor.
In fact, the whole point of capitalism is to do nothing at all, and to profit through some devious manipulation of the exchange, such as holding a monopoly on goods essential to survival.

Thank you for demonstrating your abject ignorance.

Capitalism: The free exchange of goods and services between private parties who find the exchange acceptable.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the erudite who pretend an esoteric, if not novel, endeavor.

Capitalist is participant in a system as old as time- capitalism- humans have been bartering since one discovered another had something he wanted and was willing to trade something he had for it and the involved party's agreed to an exchange. That is capitalist, using capitalism to benefit the involved. Period. It ain't rocket science- and it ain't esoteric- IMproper education, brought to you by ILL informed opinionaters have led millions down a path filled with, well, opinion, based on bias and prejudice, usually political, and gained a reward, sometimes financially- that, dear readers (as few of you as there are) is capitalism- the involved party's are capitalist. Period. Their politics is immaterial.

There are those, in any gathering of humans (and sometime animals, but, less so) who would rather take what they don't own, by force, threat of force, coercion, intimidation, etc.- yes, they're rewarded, financially, or with property acquisition- btw, financial is property- so STFU- those are criminals- writing laws doesn't make it moral- theft (see the previous) is immoral. Period. That isn't capitalism, though it is exercised by capitalist- communism, an economic theory, exercised by humans, does exactly what is the immoral, as do those claiming a moral high ground; republic or democracy, or theocratic, or monarchy- except, in a monarchy, or communist environment, the state controls all the economic activity, enFORCED with the previously mentioned, which are a trademark of our US gov't-

Our monetary system, in the US, is part Keynesean theory, designed for the British Monarchy, mixed with capitalism, enforced by communist/fascist tactics- that is called Statist- it has nothing to do with the monetary system, capitalism. It is financed, in our case, by Borrow to Spend, top down economics, i.e. Keynesean theory designed for the British Monarchy, by a British subject, John Maynard Keynes.

In the US, Reagan coined, Trickle Down Economics- same same- but, ANY economic system has to be initiated/financed by the bearer (holder) of the tool (in modern times, money) provides the tool and the incentive to use it (see above means of incentive, laws)- in today's world, that holder (bearer) is the Federal Reserve. It creates the tools (numbers on a computer screen) out of thin air, the US gov't Borrows it and spends it lending it value- the system, is capitalism/Statist and has created a system, within itself called Crony Capitalism, for good reason- but, in a Communist society it would be called Crony Communism- same same- enFORCMENT uses the same tactics, laws- to threaten, coerce, intimidate and steal what doesn't belong to it-

This is a bit of the tip of the ice berg and I'm sure eyes have already glazed over and/or turned away, which is indicative of stupid and not desirous of expanding/evolving a knowledge-

Good post.

Just a few minor things...

Democrat Tom Daschle coined the term "trickle down" to besmirch the supply side economics that Reagan and particularly economist Arthur Laffer promoted. As you noted above, Lord Keynes postulated an economic system where demand drives production. The idea that the iPhone came about in 2006 because consumers were clamoring for a pocket computer.

Of course we know this isn't true. No one was seeking a pocket computer built into a phone when Hewlett-Packard invented it. It was the act of Apple stealing the design, and then marketing the shit out of it that created the demand.

"Supply creates it's own demand" - Jean Baptiste Say

Sadly you will find an abject ignorance of economics to be the foundation of the left.

 

[danielpalos]

Under Capitalism, gold must make the rules not necessarily the social, local overlord.

 

[Rigby5]

Thank you for demonstrating your abject ignorance.

Capitalism: The free exchange of goods and services between private parties who find the exchange acceptable.

That is a theoretical and not the actual reality.
For example, where did feudalism, slavery, child labor, convict labor, etc., come from if not capitalism?
Where in your theoretical definition is there anything to prevent profitable abuses?

We all know that if not prevented, force, extortion, monopolies, etc., are all used by capitalism in order to increase profits.
The reality is that capitalism is all just about profits, and there is nothing to prevent these abusive means of increasing profits.
They are always the result of any capitalism, and have to always be stopped by strict regulation.

The reality is that capitalism is about the use of excess capital itself, in order to generate profits, such as banks making loans at a percent interest rate.
A free exchange of goods voluntarily between 2 parties is NOT profitable because you used up what you had and you can't do it again.
It is not a source of income.
You do not have a source of income unless you get more than what you had before.

 

[Rigby5]

Under Capitalism, gold must make the rules not necessarily the social, local overlord.

Yes, but if we did not prevent gold from making all the rules, then the local overlord would be our slave master.
Since slavery is more profitable to the local overlord then personal freedom, slavery would be the norm and freedom would not exist.
So that is my whole point, that unrestrained capitalism, where gold makes the rules, can never be allowed.
Everything possible should be done to prevent unrestrained capitalism, and it should only be allowed in very carefully limited ways.
There is no greater threat or danger to a democratic republic, than unrestrained capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, but if we did not prevent gold from making all the rules, then the local overlord would be our slave master.
Since slavery is more profitable to the local overlord then personal freedom, slavery would be the norm and freedom would not exist.
So that is my whole point, that unrestrained capitalism, where gold makes the rules, can never be allowed.
Everything possible should be done to prevent unrestrained capitalism, and it should only be allowed in very carefully limited ways.
There is no greater threat or danger to a democratic republic, than unrestrained capitalism.

We should be more faithful in executing our own (Constitutional) laws.

 

[Rigby5]

We should be more faithful in executing our own (Constitutional) laws.

The problem is how to prevent economic infringement on rights, such as monopolies, child labor, multi nationals overwhelming election media, etc.?
The Constitution did not anticipate any of this and left it up to the states.
But the states are each so small they are individually easily over whelmed.
Larger government scale is a possible solution, but runs the risk of being even further from our individual input.
And that brings up the question of whether or not we need a global government to prevent rights abuses like slavery, child labor, multi national election influencing, etc.?

I am not sure, but I don't think the Constitution is sufficient.

 

[danielpalos]

The problem is how to prevent economic infringement on rights, such as monopolies, child labor, multi nationals overwhelming election media, etc.?
The Constitution did not anticipate any of this and left it up to the states.
But the states are each so small they are individually easily over whelmed.
Larger government scale is a possible solution, but runs the risk of being even further from our individual input.
And that brings up the question of whether or not we need a global government to prevent rights abuses like slavery, child labor, multi national election influencing, etc.?

I am not sure, but I don't think the Constitution is sufficient.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Strongly disagree.
Barter is NOT capitalism at all, in any way.
Barter is a mutual exchange, and has no profit.

Did I receive something I valued more than what I traded away? That's a profit.

 

[task0778]

Barter is NOT capitalism at all, in any way.

Actually, it is. Barter is the voluntary exchange of something of value where both parties believe they have made a positive deal. I got what I wanted and so did you. The only difference is, capitalism introduces money into the transaction.

Barter is a mutual exchange, and has no profit.

Why would anyone enter into an exchange if they didn't believe it was in their best interest?

Capitalism is about increasing the value of your holdings, being it material or currency, and not by labor.

Not by labor? You believe a capitalist does not work to increase the value of their holdings? Maybe not physical labor but it's still working to make sure the end result will be positive.

In fact, the whole point of capitalism is to do nothing at all, and to profit through some devious manipulation of the exchange, such as holding a monopoly on goods essential to survival.

Total horseshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is a theoretical and not the actual reality.
For example, where did feudalism, slavery, child labor, convict labor, etc., come from if not capitalism?

Uh, all of those predate capitalism by thousands of years.

Capitalism is what destroyed the feudal order, which is why the would be rulers rebranded feudalism as "socialism" (nice euphemism) and have worked so hard to convince the ignorant to embrace it.

Where in your theoretical definition is there anything to prevent profitable abuses?

What is a "profitable abuse?"

We all know that if not prevented, force, extortion, monopolies, etc., are all used by capitalism in order to increase profits.
The reality is that capitalism is all just about profits, and there is nothing to prevent these abusive means of increasing profits.
They are always the result of any capitalism, and have to always be stopped by strict regulation.

In a civil society, the rule of law provides the boundaries for behavior. In our society, the democrat Reich is not subject to laws and abuses run rampant.

The reality is that capitalism is about the use of excess capital itself, in order to generate profits, such as banks making loans at a percent interest rate.

So socialism doesn't have banks?

http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/

How interesting...

A free exchange of goods voluntarily between 2 parties is NOT profitable because you used up what you had and you can't do it again.

It's always profitable to both parties - such is the nature of Capitalism.

It is not a source of income.

Idiocy.

If I sell my time to someone who needs a job done, both sides profit.

You do not have a source of income unless you get more than what you had before.

In free and uncoerced trade, both sides always get more than they had before.

 

[bripat9643]

True Capitalism requires the need for profit..bartering does not involve that..just an equal trade of value. One of the biggest pitfalls of capitalism is that it by nature, fosters greed.

That's utter bullshit. Capitalism is where people are allowed to pursue their wants and needs. You call that "greed."

 

[task0778]

True Capitalism requires the need for profit..bartering does not involve that..just an equal trade of value. One of the biggest pitfalls of capitalism is that it by nature, fosters greed.

I think you are somewhat mistaken.

"True Capitalism requires the need for profit"

Not many people that don't want to make a profit, who is going to work for nothing? Making a profit is not a bad thing, people wan to get ahead in any economic system.



"bartering does not involve that..just an equal trade of value."

Capitalism is all about an equal trade of value too, otherwise the trade wouldn't happen. the only real difference is the introduction of money and investing.



"One of the biggest pitfalls of capitalism is that it by nature, fosters greed"

Every economic system known to mankind fosters greed, it's a human failing that exists in any society and any gov't and every economy. The thing about capitalism is that you get a ton of more wealth creation that any other. The only way to stamp out greed is to eliminate or severely reduce the creation of wealth for everybody. I put it to you that the bottom 10% of income earners are way better off in a capitalistic country than otherwise. Advances in technology and innovation of new ideas and products are pretty exclusively promoted by capitalism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

True Capitalism requires the need for profit..bartering does not involve that..just an equal trade of value. One of the biggest pitfalls of capitalism is that it by nature, fosters greed.

You are simply ignorant and uneducated.

Capitalism is the voluntary exchange of value for value, nothing more, nothing less.

I offer you something you value, you offer me something I value in return. If either side is not offered value, there is no trade.

All of your lies don't alter the facts of what freedom is. And ALL liberty is based on the free market.