Are You A Capitalist?

[reverse]

oh good , thanks for that.

 

ps liked your story about how you got interested in science.

 

I like the UK as a socio-economic structure because unlike the US it evolved from kings and merchants. (I have a prized silver coin from the time of Charles - when the big shift in power occurred.)

 

Where am I going with this?

 

ummm you sure know me , I always have a mental destination in mind.

 

I really want to understand the true nature of Capitalism.

Being a true fan of energy as an entity , It bugs the hell out of me that Capital can seemingly be created out of nothing.

[Pangloss]

Ayn Rand and Martin Luther King, Jr. are personal heros of mine.

 

Take from that what you will.

 

It bugs the hell out of me that Capital can seemingly be created out of nothing.

 

Rand had a great quote about this in Atlas Shrugged:

 

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted of obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

[reverse]

I'm not against it.

 

I just want to understand it.

 

I know perfectly well how to make wealth, I'm just not sure what it is that I'm making.

 

I mean Donald Trump for goodness sake.

what more do I need to say.

[reverse]

"Rand certainly tried to exercise a superrationalistic control in her own life, with disastrous results: Her psychological understanding of people, and even of herself, was clearly and gravely limited".

 

"She was the only person at the hearings who had actually lived under Communism, indeed been a witness to the entire Russian Revolution and Civil War, and she wanted to explain how anti-capitalist messages were included in many mainstream Hollywood movies"

 

 

Not buying it.

People aren’t rational.

thanks for the look at objectivism.

 

good luck if it works for you.

 

Can you think of a real life situation where labour produces a surplus?

[Ophiolite]

Ayn Rand and Martin Luther King' date=' Jr. are personal heros of mine.

 

Take from that what you will.

[/quote']

I take it from this that you are an individual and not a stereotype. (Say, do you supppose there are more than two of us?)

Don't get me started on Rand. Atlas Shrugged is one of my top three books, along with The Count of Monte Cristo and Lord of the Rings. Make of that what you will.

 

Sorry, Reverse, didn't mean to hi-jack your thread. One of my accounting textbooks (I've dabbled in most things except vivisection and embroidery) notes that values exist not only in quantifiable terms, but also in qualitative terms. But accounting concerns itself only with what can be measured. This is not to devalue the qualitative, but simply to note it lies outside the scope of accounting.

We might extend this and say that it lies also outside the scope of economics, at least as far as measurement is concerned. In that case wealth translates into monetary wealth.

You ask, how can wealth be created out of nothing. Of course it isn't. It is created through the actions of labour, and through the expenditure of time. This time has no directly measurable value: we cannot in vacuo say, one hour equals so many euros. We can, however, place a value on the product of that labour: be the product goods or services. Thus, indirectly we can place a value on the time and labour that produced iit. This value is equivalent to wages.

[reverse]

Not at all .

be my guest ,

The scenic rout is fine by me ,

as long as we get there in the end.

[reverse]

This time has no directly measurable value: we cannot in vacuo [/i']say, one hour equals so many euros.

 

See now that’s what bugs me.

 

An hour is always an hour.

a kilojoule is always a kilojoule.

and the bloo*y electricity company manage to send you a bill in those terms.

[syntax252]

Reverse, I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say that wealth is created out of nothing.

 

Perhaps I don't understand wealth to be the same thing that you do?

 

What do you mean when you say wealth?

[Ophiolite]

See now that’s what bugs me.

 

An hour is always an hour.

a kilojoule is always a kilojoule.

and the bloo*y electricity company manage to send you a bill in those terms.

I just don't understand why that should be a problem.

Example:

[*]worker spends one hour performing task requiring no formal education and minimal IQ. (Please note this does not mean he does not have a Ph.D and membership in Mensa.)

[*]worker spends one hour performing task that requires tertiary education' date=' above average intelligence and extensive, related experience.

[/list']Which of these hours was more valuable? Were they of the same value? Which would you be prepared to pay more for?

If you have thought about it you cannot answer that question until you know what goods and services are being provided by the labour expended in that hour. The hour itself has no intrinsic value. The goods or services are what have value.

In the two examples above suppose (1) is somone sweeping your driveway clear of leaves, while (2) is a surgeon removing an ovarian cyst. Which is the more valuable goods or service?

Or alternatively, (1) is a participant in a reality TV show, (2) is a marine biologist working on an obscure temperate water shrimp. Which is more valuable? The public at large seem to have voted, indirectly in favour of (1).

 

To repeat, the value of time is determined by the goods and services that are generated in that time. These goods and services in turn derive value from how desirable they are thought to be by those with the wealth to acquire them. Can I say market forces without sparking a revolution?

 

So, what does match up for you in all this?

[Newtonian]

I think reverse is coming from the minimum wage angle,were an hour or hourly rate has a measureable value.

You ask, how can wealth be created out of nothing. Of course it isn't. It is created through the actions of labour, and through the expenditure of time. This time has no directly measurable value: we cannot in vacuo say, one hour equals so many euros

Im a fireman,i spend alot of time at home on my computer idle,'On call out'.

My wealth is created out of nothing,im doing no labour,So time for me has a measurable value.These hours equal muchas euro senior:-)

[reverse]

Reverse' date=' I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say that wealth is created out of nothing.

 

Perhaps I don't understand wealth to be the same thing that you do?

 

What do you mean when you say wealth?[/quote']

 

Oh Hi Syntax.

 

Don’t get too hung up on the question, it’s just a way to keep this on track.

 

Adam Smith in his “Wealth of nations” looks at the economic world in a particular way and uses particular words.

I’m not sure if I could define wealth, the more I think about it.

I mean Bill Gates became half as wealthy when his stock dropped in value by 50%.

Where did that other mystery 50% go.

 

I can tell you where for example the heat from my cup coffee went as I spent too long typing this.

 

and of course to continue the parallel, like yourself, I don’t need to understand thermodynamics to make a good cup of coffee.

[reverse]

Ophiolite.

 

A curiosity, The Count of Monte Cristo thought state of mind was internally relative while Marx thought the opposite.

I think Marx often had no money.

 

Back to your excellent definition.

 

I fully understand what you are saying,

 

I have a strong suspicion that it’s all just meaning created out of the way it’s being worded.

 

A similar thing would be

“what do they do with the holes in donuts after you have eaten the donut,

They tie them together to make fishing nets”

 

What do you think about the value of Newtonians profession, I see his value as far greater than that of a plastic surgeon, but hey, go figure the remuneration gap.

 

Seems to me that the general public need a good slap with "the invisible hand".

[syntax252]

Do you think that wealth could be defined as anything that the recipient finds to be of value?

 

In America, it may be money, gold or fame, in other places it may be anything from goats to glass beads?

 

You know, there is a story about buying Manhattan Isalnd from the Indians for a few pieces of cheap jewelry.

 

Also, there are times when an electricial is much more valuable that a plastic surgeon. As far as that goes, in todays world, the 140 pound computer geek is more valued than the 240 pound sword weilding warrior.

 

It was not always so.

 

Wealth can be said to have a definition that is not static?

[reverse]

Syntax.

Yes, in the general sense.

But, in this sense it may be a more narrow definition.

 

The Island for beads, huh.

?

In contract law you can not make a binding agreement if you have specialist knowledge as to value and the use it to take advantage over a party that has not.

It’s a void contract.

Just like you cant make a contract with a drunk or a child.

 

Well this thread seems to be stalling.

What about an attack form a different direction.

 

Looking outside man,

do we see any ways of organisation in animals or insects that looks like capitalism or social structure.

Wealth seems to be a social device related to power freedom and status.

I know the Victorians were enjoying the notion of the bee hive being similar to human society.

Especially the bit about the queen and the drones being different from the workers.

[syntax252]

Syntax.

Yes' date=' in the general sense.

But, in this sense it may be a more narrow definition.

 

The Island for beads, huh.

?

In contract law you can not make a binding agreement if you have specialist knowledge as to value and the use it to take advantage over a party that has not.

It’s a void contract.

Just like you cant make a contract with a drunk or a child.[/quote']

 

This was way back in the 1600s and cantract law was not as evolved as it is today.

 

 

Looking outside man,

do we see any ways of organisation in animals or insects that looks like capitalism or social structure.

Wealth seems to be a social device related to power freedom and status.

I know the Victorians were enjoying the notion of the bee hive being similar to human society.

Especially the bit about the queen and the drones being different from the workers.

 

I would say that if wealth were discribed as an asset that would contribute to the survival of the group or the undividual--and why not?--then certainly the beehive with it's store of honey would be an example of an insect creating wealth.

 

However, under that difinition, fat could be defined as wealth too and I have known a lot of fat ladies who were broke.

[reverse]

And just another angle of attack for those of you with an interest in evolution.

 

Specialisation

We observe this feature in the physical structure of animals,

Banks noted this in his travels .

It’s a big part of how evolution works.

 

Specialisation was also big thing in Adam Smiths argument .

He thought than rather than everyone doing everything for themselves, there was great advantage to be had from each person doing just one job.

Division of labour.

Thus getting really good at it and getting efficiencies in repetition and all sorts of other savings.

For those sceptics amongst you try a test.

Time how long it takes you to make one cup of coffee.

then try making ten at once.

Now imagine this saving on a grand scale.

 

Smiths “invisible hand” may be another view of “the force of evolution”.

 

Of course this is where the problem sets in.

Once you divide labour, you need money to trade for the other necessities of life that you no longer produce for yourself.

Then you need to figure out what a task is worth.

This is where it all breaks down.

And also eventually you can’t make a thing like a computer for example because of the level of specialisation that has occurred.

[syntax252]

And also eventually you can’t make a thing like a computer for example because of the level of specialisation that has occurred.

I don't see why not.

[albertlee]

US is indeed a capitalist country, and I love all capitalist countries...

 

how about Europe?? is UK a capitalist country?? Germany, Netherlands, France, ???

 

I got a strong impression that Europe often put on so much tax on rich people, restricting the flexibility on investiment....

 

 

I think if I am poor, I would choose to live in Europe, to get pensions..

if I am rich, I would choose to live in America, to spend money on many wonderful things.....

 

 

Albert

[albertlee]

by the way, I hate all socialist countries... because it seems employees are actually the boss of a company, why we cant fire people at wish???

 

Secondly, I use to hate Communist countries as well, but it seems China is a really tricky case.... They dont have such high tax like in Europe... The boss of a company actually "obtains" more potential on his/her ownership,.... Every one has to struggle their way out on all kinds of jobs to earn money,....., but any way, I still detest all Chinese Communists........

 

Albert

[budullewraagh]

"because it seems employees are actually the boss of a company, why we cant fire people at wish???"

are you kidding me?

 

"Secondly, I use to hate Communist countries as well, but it seems China is a really tricky case...."

china's economy isn't communistic anymore. really.

[reverse]

 

Albert

 

Oh Hi Albert.

You are welcome to your point of view.

it is very strong.

have You had a personal experience of these problems yourself ?

or are you supporting a friend?

 

What do you think wealth is?

and why would you co operate with a capitalist system?

 

One thing I thought of is how colourful and interesting products become under capitalist competition.

 

I don’t think we would have had the Beatles for example under a more strict system.

[reverse]

Why we cant fire people at wish?

 

That is easy if you think about it.

 

If Carl Marx had been happily working he would not have had the time to come up with the seeds of communism.

Or for that matter if the balance of power and wealth in London (at the time) had been more even, then Marx would not have seen all the misery that caused his ideas (on another way to do things).

 

Then the Capitalists in the US wouldn’t have had to spend all that money fighting communism,

deal with Russia

get all sorts of problems in the middle east by the deals they struck with local warlords etc etc .

 

So in short,

it’s more cost efficient from a capitalist point of view to keep the balance of power between the workers and the employers closer to the middle.

 

In other words,

your actions will always produce exactly what it is that you despise.

 

Now that is funny if you think about it.

 

well it would be funny if it wasnt true and tragic.

[reverse]

"because it seems employees are actually the boss of a company' date=' why we cant fire people at wish???"

are you kidding me?

 

"Secondly, I use to hate Communist countries as well, but it seems China is a really tricky case...."

china's economy isn't communistic anymore. really.[/quote']

 

Hi Bud.

 

Yes He's serious.

It's youth .

be good to save this and give it to him after a few years.

[reverse]

I don't see why not.

 

 

ok ok you got me there, I should say microprocessor.

You can put away those plans for three square acres of relays valves and home grown diodes now.

 

You did strike pay dirt with one observation.

the Beads and the Indians.

 

Yes, a thing can be worth nil in one society,

and a fortune in another.

You can get really rich by transferring that thing over.

 

As we speak the multinationals are using the” Manhattan island trick”.

 

China labour cheap, USA labour expensive.

 

It’s a cunning slight of hand that exploits the weakness in the way we value things

and you know what,

it’s not honest.

[YT2095]

Straight to the point as usual.

 

In that scenario my friend' date=' you are the labour not the capitalist.

 

The fly, not the spider.[/quote']

 

how do you draw that conclusion?

 

Payment comes in many different guises and are Not restricted solely to the arbitrary Tokens you call Money. and is Not limited to working for someone else (a form of prostitution).

 

I don`t want to go into an Anarchist rant, but I prefer to work for myself, and reap the rewards of my efforts for myself.

 

take this place for example, I don`t work for Blike, I work for Me, I get just as much out of this place as I put in, there`s hardly a day on here go by when I don`t learn Something New, that has Value to me, and in turn, I do my best here to put some back.

 

No Spider/Fly thing