Jesus Appalled by Capitalism? (part deux) by SignyM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"technological non-monetary culture"

For their times, any culture that invented or harnessed language, fire, bowls, agriculture and husbandry etc was 'technological'. Some may see this as splitting hairs. However, if the claim is that one 'needs' capitalism for invention, I think the evidence is to the contrary.

Currently there are many 'open source' and 'free' (free as in freedom, not beer) initiatives that also invent and work without money or monetary incentive. That they happen to be imbedded in a surrounding money-based capitalist culture doesn't take away from the fact they work on a completely different model. And they are robust enough to be a significant threat to the current way of doing things.

Geezer - your turn to meet the challenge?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 10:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Currently there are many 'open source' and 'free' (free as in freedom, not beer) initiatives that also invent and work without money or monetary incentive.

Examples, please. All you have to do is look out your window to see capitalist economy providing goods and services. Where is there a non-monetary economy currently in existance? And while we're at it, one that's at more than the small village, subsistance level farming stage? That just won't work to support the population load we got, and doesn't sound like much fun anyway.

Quote:
That they happen to be imbedded in a surrounding money-based capitalist culture doesn't take away from the fact they work on a completely different model.

But would they be able to survive without the capitalist culture to provide things they can't make as individuals or small groups?

Quote:
And they are robust enough to be a significant threat to the current way of doing things.

And their names are? I keep asking for examples of a functional non-capitalist economy which offers adequate goods and services to maintain a lifestyle most people in capitalist countries enjoy, and I get Polish farming villages, Incans, and little-known civilizations that died 5 millenia ago.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 10:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I responded to the challenge. And you? When you start to answer the challenge we can go on to discuss mine.

But for now I need to dissect someone else's code and then go to a meeting. I hope to see your initial post to the challenge when I get back.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 10:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

One of the problems with GDP... yes, I know it seems like I'm going off-track, but I'm not... is that it doesn't track goods or services that don't involve money. Seems like a minor exception until you realize that raising children involves an awful lot of work that is NEVER tracked by GDP. Laundry, housekeeping, staying up with a fevered child, going for walks, helping with homework, cooking, cleaning, coaching the soccer team... If you had to PAY for that stuff it'd be in the tens of billions.

Free software: same thing. It's added billions worth of goods and services to economies all over the world. About a third of internet servers are currently running free software.

I think I understand your point Geezer, but a "monetary" economy does not necessarily mean a "capitalist" one, and so I think what we need to do to progress in this discusison is to figure out what "capitalist" means.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 12:18 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I responded to the challenge. And you? When you start to answer the challenge we can go on to discuss mine.

Most definitions of capitalism seem to agree on a few points:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.
2. Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.
3. Idea is to make a profit.
4. Pricing is determined largely by a free market.
5. Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

This seems like a good general definition to me. I would consider any country in which most production and distribution is owned by the private sector, with the intent to make a profit, and with prices generally set by market forces, to be capitalist.

So who are these successful non-capitalists?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:25 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I would quibble with "individuals or groups" because that really doesn't exclude anyone. Perhaps the definition should be "non-governmental groups". Of course, then we get into a discusison about "what is a government" but I guess that's another story.

Taiwan, Singapore, and China.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:47 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Where is there a non-monetary economy currently in existance? And while we're at it, one that's at more than the small village, subsistance level farming stage?

Any major city.

Anyone who thinks different ain't never been poor enough to be involved in it, and if you don't believe me, read up on it.

Off the Books: The Underground Economy of the Urban Poor
by: Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh
ISBN-10: 0674023552
ISBN-13: 978-0674023550

You might also dig up the folklore "Story of the eleventh round" in order to understand why our current concept of capitalism is ruinous.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:56 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I would quibble with "individuals or groups" because that really doesn't exclude anyone. Perhaps the definition should be "non-governmental groups". Of course, then we get into a discusison about "what is a government" but I guess that's another story.

Taiwan, Singapore, and China.

Sigh. Individuals or groups of individuals then. Excludes governments.

Please, let's not try to redefine 'capitalism', like you did 'charity', until it's completely outside most accepted definitions. I've given you my definition of capitalism, and I stick by it.

Taiwan, Singapore, and China.

CIA world fact book considers Taiwan a "...dynamic capitalist economy with gradually decreasing guidance of investment and foreign trade by government authorities. In keeping with this trend, some large, government-owned banks and industrial firms are being privatized."

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html

They also consider Singapore "...a highly-developed and successful free-market economy, enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP equal to that of the four largest West European countries."

In Singapore you can be jailed for pitching your chewing gum. In China you can't raise a family due to their "One Child" policy. Not the places for me, thanks.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 2:16 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Where is there a non-monetary economy currently in existence?

Any major city.

Anyone who thinks different ain't never been poor enough to be involved in it, and if you don't believe me, read up on it.

Quote:
You might also dig up the folklore "Story of the eleventh round" in order to understand why our current concept of capitalism is ruinous.

This has nothing to do with capitalism, as I define it, and everything to do with the value of money, assuming that one 'round' is always worth one chicken, that the supply of chickens is stable, and that individuals cannot set the price of chickens simply by saying "I won't pay one round for one chicken, but maybe eleven rounds for ten chickens". If they do that, then you got a 'free-market economy'.

I'm still looking for a successful, stand-alone, non-capitalist economy which provides the goods and services that citizens in capitalist economies expect.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 2:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

OK, where is there a non-monetary economy in existence without a monetary, capitalist, economy running in parallel to provide the goods? I've made this point a few times, so it should be understood by now. I'll make sure to clarify in future. I have seen many services and quite a number of goods provided non-monetarily. But what does this have to do with capitalism? Louis XVI had money but it certainly wasn't a capitalist economy.

I know you're going to beat on this point because Rue said "non-monetary" economies. But can we set that aside in our discussion of capitalism? Because the two have as much to do with each other as oceans and apples.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 2:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, I just supplied you three extant, technological non-capitalist economies but I'll repeat myself:

Taiwan.

Singapore.

China.

But if you care to look back in history, you'll see a plethora of non-capitalist economies that provided for their people with the greatest technology that was available at the time. AND they made significant advances: fire, argiculture, writing and the alphabet, mathematics, geography, geometry, metallurgy, animal husbandry, the printing press, chemistry, hydrology and irrigation, sanitation, art, architecture... why, we admire many of their products even today.

It seems dangerously self-referential to claim that because capitalism is the latest economic form (so far) and enjoys the fruits of previous advances that it is the BEST economic form. That's like looking at humans as the penultimate in evolution.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 2:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"without a monetary, capitalist, economy running in parallel to provide the goods"

Any remote tribe is non-monetary. The test - should the money economy disappear, they would be able to sustain themselves.

Large monetary economies may also be non-capitalist - like China. You may not LIKE the society, but it is a valid example. Not only are they non-capitalist, they are modern and inventive.

Your turn. Devise for me a modern non-capitalist society.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:09 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I just supplied you three extant, technological non-capitalist economies but I'll repeat myself:

Taiwan.

Singapore.

China.

Quote:
But if you care to look back in history, you'll see a plethora of non-capitalist economies that provided for their people with the greatest technology that was available at the time. AND they made significant advances: fire, argiculture, writing and the alphabet, mathematics, geography, geometry, metallurgy, animal husbandry, the printing press, chemistry, hydrology and irrigation, sanitation, art, architecture... why, we admire many of their products even today.

True. But could they sustain the world as it exists today? I'm not denegrating previous economic systems, but they aren't up to the task of providing, however inequally, for the 6 billion folks we got running around today. I'm not interested in a system that requires that 99% of the Earth's population die off to work.

Quote:
It seems dangerously self-referential to claim that because capitalism is the latest economic form (so far) and enjoys the fruits of previous advances that it is the BEST economic form.

Never said it was "The Best". Just said it's the best so far. If you can show me a better economic system that is applicable to the real world as it stands today, I'd be glad to see it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:16 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Any remote tribe is non-monetary. The test - should the money economy disappear, they would be able to sustain themselves.

You want to live in a subsistance society, knock yourself out. Say goodby to medicine, healthy food, education beyond survival skills, etc.

Quote:
Large monetary economies may also be non-capitalist - like China. You may not LIKE the society, but it is a valid example. Not only are they non-capitalist, they are modern and inventive.

Once again, you want China's lifestyle, go for it. State control of your every action, little or no individual rights, massive pollution, etc. Not for me, please.

Quote:
Your turn. Devise for me a modern non-capitalist society.

Why? I don't believe there can currently be such a thing. You're the one who thinks capitalism is bound to fail. You provide an alternative that maintains your standard of living. Answer a question for once, if you can.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:24 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy.

Anybody?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I do have an answer, but I'm curious why you think people living two paychecks away from being out on the street are comfortable and secure. Except for the very rich who can buy their way past any contingency, no one - no matter how careful - is immune from the gaping maw of poverty. No one, except the very rich, can be guaranteed to be able to pay their bills just by working and 'not being stupid'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:42 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I do have an answer,

Let's hear it, then.

Quote:
but I'm curious why you think people living two paychecks away from being out on the street are comfortable and secure. Except for the very rich who can buy their way past any contingency, no one - no matter how careful - is immune from the gaping maw of poverty.

Prove to me that the majority, or even a great number, of people in countries with a capitalist economy are in this situation, and I'll address it. Or else tell me why all the people in non-capitalist economies rub blue clay into their bellybuttons.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Prove to me that the majority, or even a great number, of people in countries with a capitalist economy are in this situation" of being two paychecks away from being out on the street. Prove to me they aren't. YOU made the claim capitalism provides security. Show me it does.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:51 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Prove to me that the majority, or even a great number, of people in countries with a capitalist economy are in this situation" of being two paychecks away from being out on the street. Prove to me they aren't. YOU made the claim capitalism provides security. Show me it does.

Cool. Ask me to prove a negative. Come on, you made the statement, you should have some information to back it up. Otherwise, you're just spouting. BTW, prove that non-capitalists aren't rubbing blue mud in their navels.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy."

Can't back it up, eh?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

BTW, as corporations go multi-national, also do unions. Seems fair.

Quote:
Amicus, a major union in the UK, is to discuss a possible merger with another union based in the US and Canada.
If agreed, it would bring another 1.2m members to Amicus, creating one of the biggest unions in the world with more than 3m members.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6531749.stm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:54 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Okay. Once again, all you people sitting in your climate conditioned homes, in front of your computers, with clean water, good food, reliable transportation, 911 a phone call away, entertainment, leisure, a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid; describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy."

Can't back it up, eh?

You obviously have access to a computer, or you wouldn't be posting. If you're in the USA, the EU, Australia, Canada, or any of the other countries with a capitalist economy, you most likely have clean water, good food, etc. as most people there do.

This is getting pretty lame. If you have a viable alternative to capitalism that will maintain the standard of living that the majority of people in capitalist countries currently have, let me know. I'm beginning to believe that you don't, and are just trolling for an argument.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:07 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Here's a troll remark for Rue:

Jesus was a carpenter. You think he did that shit for free?

Just trying to help you prove your case that I'm a troll Rue. How was that?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:26 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let's go with the longer list:

"computers"
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p23-208.pdf
35 percent of households with householders aged 65 and older, about 45 percent of households with Black or Hispanic householders, and 28 percent of households with householders who had less than a high school education had a computer.

"clean water"
http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/water/a_wateruse.html
"by 2000 about 85 percent (of the United States population obtained drinking water from public suppliers)"

"good food"
http://millionsofmouths.com/blog/nfblog/?p=168
"Hunger and homelessness remain a critical issue. A report released by U.S. Department of Agriculture on Nov. 15, 2006 revealed that in the previous year 34.8 million Americans did not have enough money or other resources to buy food."

"reliable transportation"
Difficult to measure. The US has poor public transportation.

"911 a phone call away"
Does this mean police services? Cuba and China have them as well.

"entertainment"
Literally ALL cultures have entertainment.

"leisure"
Not as much as socialized economies.

"a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid"
Not really. Check out "negative savings rates" "united states" Also, "percentage in foreclosure", plus "bankruptcy" "medical bills"

Your list fails to prove your point in several different ways. Some things such as food and computers are poorly distributed so that many lack while others have excess. Some things like clean water (and in other countries transportation) are public services and not provided by 'capitalism'. Some things like entertainment are present in all cultures. And so on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Jesus was a carpenter. You think he did that shit for free?"

So far as anyone knows, Jesus never plied his trade as a carpenter. He lived off the largess of friends and followers, walking from home to home and city to city where he 'stayed' with friends. He never owned property either - all he had to call his own were his sandals and robes. I don't think you can make a case he was a capitalist. Unless you think he said "blessed are the cheesemakers."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:35 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
your climate conditioned homes

Which we dare not use to more than reduce the misery cause heating and cooling costs are insane, controlled by government-sponsored monopolies that squeeze every dime of profit, ask us to 'conserve energy' and then when we do, cry that they're losing money and 'justify' rate increases.

Quote:
in front of your computers

Which was built on the cheap out of parts bartered for services.
Which ISP service is financed by sold recyclables.

Quote:
with clean water

Full of waste products from pharmaceutical companies, pollution from the power plants, and contaminated with flouride.

Quote:
good food

Full of MSG, Aspartame, and all kinds of horrific things a lotta folk would rather not dump into thier system, but the alternatives are too expensive to afford, and any standards to call many modern day foods "organic" are just plain laughable.

Quote:
reliable transportation

Bwahahaha *gasp-wheeze* hahahahah... let's just say it's a good day if no pieces fall off en route.

Quote:
911 a phone call away

please stay on the line, your call will be answered in the order it was recieved...

Quote:
entertainment

What most people qualify as entertainment, I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and smart folk can entertain themselves for free, which has been goin on since before recorded history, mind you.

Quote:
leisure

HAHAHAHAHA, work, work, sleep, eat, work, work, work some more, and maybe have a little while to poke around on the net while semi-nodding off to sleep and then work work work... whatever you're smoking, pass left.

Quote:
a job that pretty much pays your bills if you don't get stupid

You've GOT to be kidding me, I drive a cab, and pay for my own fuel costs, and then get completely fekkin raped on taxes cause I don't sell my very soul to some megacorp zaibatsu like everyone else - payin the bills requires throwing in side work and odd jobs just to get it done, because after uncle scumbag bends you over the sawhorse, you don't have enough LEFT to pay the bills.

Quote:
describe to me an economic system, other than capitalism, which would allow you to maintain your life without a great reduction in the benefits you enjoy.

Benefits ?
BENEFITS ?

I fail to see where an all encompassin voracious beast of a government locked in an incestuous embrace with sociopathic protected monopoly corporations is a BENEFIT to me in any logical or reasonable way.

Especially when it comes to my door and consumes MY resources to pay for things I don't want which neither benefit me, or in many cases directly or indirectly impact me in a NEGATIVE fashion.

I notice you weren't fool enough to throw the words 'health care' into that deluded dream of prosperity that does not in ANY WAY occur under the $75,000.00USD/Year mark...

Quote:
Or else tell me why all the people in non-capitalist economies rub blue clay into their bellybuttons.

Cause maybe they LIKE to do that, maybe it's what they wanna do, and maybe, just maybe, there's not no pissant government official lording over them telling them what they can and cannot do... who knows, maybe it makes em happy, and if so, more power to em.

We don't actually HAVE a capitalism, we have a corporate-governmental totalarianist oligarchy, and to believe anything else is just silly.

So you're just blowing smoke rings, when it comes right down to it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 4:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Once again, you want China's lifestyle, go for it. State control of your every action, little or no individual rights, massive pollution, etc. Not for me, please.

Hey Geezer! You really ARE moving the goal-posts! All you asked for (originally) was a non-capitalist economy that can give you facny stuff. Well, here it is.

JEEZ!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 5:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Why do you consider Taiwan and Singapore non-capitalist? The CIA, at least, considers them capitalist or free-market? Regardless of what their political systems are, their economy acts in a capitalist manner as described above. Prove me wrong.

I don't know if you remember, but I SPECIFICALLY said that you won't find the CIA calling these nations anything other than "free market capitalist" But about 50% of Taiwan's industry is government-owned. The CIA provides back-handed evidence for this when they say

gradually decreasing guidance of investment and foreign trade by government authorities. In keeping with this trend, some large, government-owned banks and industrial firms are being privatized.
ALSO Large government-owned corporations were set up to develop strategic industries such as steel, petrochemicals, shipbuilding, and energy. New airports, highways, railways, seaports, and communications systems were built (by the government)
www.bsicorp.net/countries/taiwan.shtml

Just google Taiwan government owned industry

AFA Singapore is concerned, the government has a complicated relationship with the economy but Government-linked corporations (GLCs) are majority government-owned but operate commercially, unlike traditional parastatals. GLCs account for more than 60% of Singapore's GDP. Industrial GLCs include Singapore Technologies (aerospace and electronics manufacturer); Keppel Corporation (oil drilling and related equipment manufacturer); Sembawang Corporation (construction and environmental engineering); Chartered Semiconductor Manufacturing, Singapore Telecom Petrochemical Corp. of Singapore, and Singapore Refining Corp.
www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Singapore-INDUSTRY.html

Geezer, I hope you learned something from this discussion because you sure as hell didn't know much before.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 5:14 PM

FLETCH2

I think part of the problem is actually defining what Capitalism is. I've yet to find a good description. It isn't trade, trade has existed as long as there have been human societies, it isn't currency, that's been about for a very long time as well.

I've come to an opinion, kind of my own line in the sand, that says that most societies that existed prior to the mid 1700's are not truely capitalist societies. They produced things, had money, the concept of property and they traded but to my mind the big change was the one Adam Smith was describing in Wealth of Nations the existance of the concept of the industrial investor.

Manufactories have existed since at least the middle ages, in fact it was common for tradesmen to employ several apprentices that worked for them, but in the 1700's people started to establish larger and larger workshops employing workmen as employees, rather than as independent craftsmen or apprentices. The owners of these workshops where business men rather than just craftsmen they were hiring people to make things for them rather than hiring people to make things with them.

This was the dawn of the industrial revolution, these men where the industrialists, and the system that they were applying was early capitalism. The big difference to my mind is that these where people for whom manufacturing was a way to use money to make money more than an exercise in it's own right.

What we have today is even more abstract. Modern capitalism is really about the commoditization of money, it's use as a raw material to be bought sold and traded like any other industrial product. Thus almost every human endevor has been removed from the equation. Investors are only interested in getting a higher return for their investment and not how that return was made. It doesn't matter to them (and sometimes they dont even know) if the return comes from making life saving drugs or cigarettes, or by making movies or making wars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:28 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Unless you think he said "blessed are the cheesemakers."

HA! Cheesemakers.....

And I was beginning to think nobody had a sense of humore in RWED.

Better keep listening. There might be a bit about "Blessed are the Bignoses"

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I have a fwend in Wome. And his name is Biggus Dickus.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 5, 2007 7:54 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

When in Wome, do like a Woman

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:01 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's go with the longer list:

Let's not. First, I was talking about capitalist countries in general, not just the US, so you need to provide some more examples. Second, I never said that capitalism, as it exists today, doesn't have problems. Third, you still haven't shown any hint that you have a better system in mind to replace it.

I met my part of the challenge by defining what I consider capitalism. You can't meet yours, so you're starting to change the subject again.

What economic system do you want to replace the capitalism you hate so much?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

OK Fremd, maybe you can offer a better economic system than the evil capitalism?

edited to add: "Which was built on the cheap out of parts bartered for services." Ah, but who built those parts? A blacksmith?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:13 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hey Geezer! You really ARE moving the goal-posts! All you asked for (originally) was a non-capitalist economy that can give you facny stuff. Well, here it is.

What I've been asking for is a description of the economic system that you, Rue, and now Fred think could replace the existing capitalist system you hate so much. So far I've got nada.

I'm actually getting more convinced that capitalism, with all its problems, is the best system so far. I know that I got at least three people here who seem to absolutely hate it, but who can't come up with a viable alternative to replace it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 2:49 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think part of the problem is actually defining what Capitalism is. I've yet to find a good description. It isn't trade, trade has existed as long as there have been human societies, it isn't currency, that's been about for a very long time as well.

I'm still sticking with this

1. Capitalism is an economic system.
2. Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.
3. Idea is to make a profit.
4. Pricing is determined largely by a free market.
5. Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

Type 'capitalism' into a search engine and these traits are common among almost all definitions.

Capitalism is an economic system in the same way that English Common Law is a legal system or Socialism is a system of government. How it plays in the real world depends on how individuals and groups use it.

Remember, capitalism isn't just Bill Gates and Wal-Mart, it's also the guys who got together to open the burger stand down the street, pooling and risking their capital in hopes of making a profit.

Quote:
Investors are only interested in getting a higher return for their investment and not how that return was made. It doesn't matter to them (and sometimes they dont even know) if the return comes from making life saving drugs or cigarettes, or by making movies or making wars.

Some investors. There has been quite a move to investments and funds made up of eco-friendly companies or those which do not produce weapons.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hey Geezer! You really ARE moving the goal-posts! All you asked for (originally) was a non-capitalist economy that can give you facny stuff. Well, here it is.-Signy

What I've been asking for is a description of the economic system that you, Rue, and now Fred think could replace the existing capitalist system you hate so much. So far I've got nada.-Geezer

No, you've gotten THREE examples of systems which are not capitalism which could replace it. The fact that your don't like the proposed system based on your prejudices and upbringing is neither here not there.

I'm actually getting more convinced that capitalism, with all its problems, is the best system so far. I know that I got at least three people here who seem to absolutely hate it, but who can't come up with a viable alternative to replace it.

Please don't confuse your lack of imagination with a lack of alternatives. I actually have four altneratives in mind: one in a tweak on capitalism, one is non-capitalist and already exists, and two are is theoretical. But if you keep moving the goalposts because you want to reject alternatives, I'm not going to discuss them in detail because it's just a waste of my time. Take the fingers out of your ears and stop chanting "I can't hear you" amd then we can talk.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:32 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...SignyM posted a number of examples of abusive capitalism...

Abusive Capitalism. Interesting phrase. From the same people who brought you "Gun Crime" no doubt.

"Why yes, Sir, that old Abusive Capitalism just jumped out of the drawer and shot Jimmy dead."

What you really posted were examples of companies and individuals abusing the system. You could find examples of the same things in the world of non-profits.

Quote:
Area United Way's Ex-Chief Admits $500,000 Fraud

By Jacqueline L. Salmon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 5, 2004; Page B01

The former chief executive of the local United Way, who touched off a devastating financial scandal at the organization, yesterday pleaded guilty to defrauding the charity of almost $500,000.

Prosecutors said Oral Suer, who ran the United Way of the National Capital Area for 27 years until his retirement in February 2001, charged the organization for personal expenses such as bowling equipment and trips to Las Vegas, paid himself $333,000 for annual leave he had taken and took $94,000 more than his share from the charity's pension plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A3
1702-2004Mar4¬Found=true

Capitalism isn't a monolith, it's multiples of companies and people all doing things in their on ways. Some are ethical and some are not, just like there are ethical and non-ethical in government, the law, medicine, sports, and pretty much everything else. If you want to be mad with unethical people, I'm right with you. But to ditch the whole system, with no replacement in sight, is that baby/bathwater thing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:41 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

1) Capitalism is an economic system.

Okay. I think we may need to define "economic system" in the future but so far so good.

2) Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.

MOSTLY by individuals or groups? Let's see, who does the definition leave out? If you're not an individual you're a ... group! A government. An NGO. A group of investors. Huh. This part of the definition doesn't seem to say much.

3) Idea is to make a profit.

But if you're a non-profit NGO or a government (see "groups", above) then the idea may not necessarily be to make a profit.

4) Pricing is determined largely by a free market.

Whatever that means. See below.

5) Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

There are many types of corporations, you need to specify the stock-holding kind of corporation.

Also, you left out a major feature of capitalism, which is the presence of competition. That might be considered to be alluded to in in "free markets" but it might not, depending on your definition of "free". If you mean by "free" simply non-interference by government that does not necessarily include competition.

So I find the definition rather weak and needing modification.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Capitalism isn't a monolith, it's multiples of companies and people all doing things in their on ways. Some are ethical and some are not, just like there are ethical and non-ethical in government, the law, medicine, sports, and pretty much everything else. If you want to be mad with unethical people, I'm right with you. But to ditch the whole system, with no replacement in sight, is that baby/bathwater thing.

Geezer- Your defense of capitalism is rather like a church member's defense of religion: It would be perfect, if it weren't for the people practicing it! The problem with capitalism is that it is flawed at its very base. There is no inherent check or balance inherent within capitalism from becoming monopolist or abusive. Checks needs to be applied from the outside.

BTW- I DO have alternatives. I posted about several variations on government-owned production as one. You didn't "like" it, but once viably democratic elections are introduced along with free speech, then those systems have a shot at becoming even better than what we've got. I also have a couple of other ideas which I'm not going to introduce until you take your fingers out of your ears!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 3:56 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

I'm still sticking with this

1. Capitalism is an economic system.

And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

Quote:

2. Means of production and distribution is owned mostly by individuals or groups.

That's not exclusive to Capitalism. That's been the situation since craftsmen and peddlers made things to trade rather than hunt/grow things themselves.

Quote:

3. Idea is to make a profit.

Still not exclusive here... nobody is in business to make a loss.

Quote:

4. Pricing is determined largely by a free market.

So America before NAFTA and the WTO was not a capitalist society? Capitalism works better with a free market but Imperialist closed market economies where still Capitalist.

Quote:

5. Generally involves the ability of individuals and groups to form corporations to act as a single entity.

I have read the various definitions and they all do what you do they look at what capitalism is and then present a checklist. the problem is that the same checklist applies to an awfull lot of preindustrial, pre capitalist societies as well. This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.

Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.

Go back a few hundred years and we have everything in your list, craftsmen owning and running manufaturies of apprentices and workers, markets to sell in, in fact the whole deal. However back then it was the guy that ran the business that was the important one, you wouldn't dream of openning a silversmiths business or a harness makers unless you were a craftsman in that industry.

What happened, at least in the UK is that changes in agriculture produced wealth that could not be turned easily into more land for more farming. This excess of capital needed to go somewhere and so you had something new, investors whose principle interest in any enterprise was return on their money rather than any connection to the business they were investing in. That is the principle difference. It is the use of capital to make capital using industry a a mechanism, the end product for the investor being money not the product of the factory itself.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:05 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, you've gotten THREE examples of systems which are not capitalism which could replace it. The fact that your don't like the proposed system based on your prejudices and upbringing is neither here not there.

Taiwan is currently privatizing its government-held businesses for all it's worth, moving towards capitalism, so that's not much of a viable replacement.

Singapore is also privatizing and is aiming for a free market system. Two down. http://www.aseansec.org/12389.htm

As to China, I don't think that a country with a $1,262.59 GDP per capita provides a valid alternative to capitalist countries with average GDP per capita of, say, $30,000.00 or so. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_percap-economy-gdp-nominal-p
er-capita

So excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by your examples.

Quote:
I actually have four altneratives in mind: one in a tweak on capitalism, one is non-capitalist and already exists, and two are is theoretical. But if you keep moving the goalposts because you want to reject alternatives, I'm not going to discuss them in detail because it's just a waste of my time.

Cute, you get to criticize capitalism all you want, but I can't see your alternatives because I might find problems with them. Apparently they are so weak thay can't stand scrutiny.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:18 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So I find the definition rather weak and needing modification.

Talk to all the economists who wrote the definitions I paraphrased above.

I just love this. The standard definition which is used almost universally to describe something doesn't fit your prejudices, so want it to mean something else. Who does that remind me of?

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 4:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Capitalism is an economic system.

And a spade is a spade. Redundant definition surely?

...This leads to the situation where you can retroactively label most societies since the dark ages as being capitalist in nature when that is not nescessarily true.

Apparently not redundant, since you go on to call capitalism a societial system.

And, yes, there were individual capitalists back in the Dark Ages, but for there to be a capitalist economic system, they need to be the main driver of the economy.

Quote:
Capitalism is what it says it is, an economic model where capital, principly money, is seen as the dominant component of a commercial enterprise. In a capitalist enterprise it is the investor, the guy that puts money into a scheme that owns and controls it not the person that runs the business.

So Bill Gates isn't a capitalist?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Taiwan is currently privatizing its government-held businesses for all it's worth, moving towards capitalism, so that's not much of a viable replacement.

WHOA THERE Geezer! All of Taiwan's "economic miracle" came from their mixed economic system. Just because they may be changing their economy NOW doesn't negate the fact that their rapid development came from an alternate economy! How do you justify ignoring such an obvious and significant fact?

Quote:
Singapore is also privatizing and is aiming for a free market system.

Ditto. Singapore has been rightly called a "socialist miracle". ALL of their economic progress was based on a not-fully-capitalist system. It's not reasonable or intellectually honest to ignore facts of history just because you don't like the lesson that they teach.

And what happens if their economies go down the drain after changing to a "capitalist" system? Would you then accept that they had a "viable alternative" because the introduction of capitalism caused a decrease in GDP and/or living standards? Or would you find some sort of excuse for the failure of capitalism to provide a "viable alternative"? (The changeover was clumsy... What they implemented wasn't "really" capitalism... But they gained "freedom" or some other intangible....The timing was bad because it's a down part of the business cycle....They're not culturally or politically attuned to free market economies...The pain is only temporary.... )

Quote:
As to China, I don't think that a country with a $1,262.59 GDP per capita provides a valid alternative to capitalist countries with average GDP per capita of, say, $30,000.00 or so.

So, what WERE your criteria for accepting an alternate economic structure? I thought it was to be able to be technological. Then you added political considerations. Now you're adding GDP. How about if I add RATE OF GROWTH? Looking at China, Taiwan, and Singapore, that seems to be the outstanding feature of mixed economies... their RATE OF GROWTH is phenomenal. Wouldn't you say?

heh heh heh

Quote:
So excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by your examples

Ah, so we have the Geezer standard of economic viablity. It needs to be... oh, just like what you're used to in order to be considered "viable". heh.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Talk to all the economists who wrote the definitions I paraphrased above. I just love this. The standard definition which is used almost universally to describe something doesn't fit your prejudices, so want it to mean something else. Who does that remind me of?

Parts of the definition on their face don't make sense ("individuals or groups" for example) and other parts need clarification. Economists have spent books trying to define and clarify what "capitalism" means. I cite Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations for the critical component of competition, which is one of the fundamental underlying assumptions of the "free market"(which also requires that exchanges be made without "force or fraud").

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 6, 2007 5:38 AM