Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Capitalism is not a free system, it’s a heavily structured one.
Please look at the facts, not just the propaganda terms.
The facts say you are wrong. Nobody can control anything in a true capitalist system. You feel like it’s structured and corrupt is because of government regulations in the current capitalist system. In fact, the US economy is far less capitalist than many other countries such as HK or even the Nordic counties.
The facts say you are wrong. Nobody can control anything in a true capitalist system. You feel like it’s structured and corrupt is because of government regulations in the current capitalist system. In fact, the US economy is far less capitalist than many other countries such as HK or even the Nordic counties.
No government regulations, no corruption.
Capitalism isn’t just trade between people, it is the manipulation of capital value in the goal of increased wealth.
Goods have no intrinsic value, they have function, but free market capitalism requires market control of that value. That is why car and oil cartels are set up, because those who control the market control consumption and labor.
If the state doesn’t control the market, some other large company will.
Capitalism isn’t just trade between people, it is the manipulation of capital value in the goal of increased wealth.
Goods have no intrinsic value, they have function, but free market capitalism requires market control of that value. That is why car and oil cartels are set up, because those who control the market control consumption and labor.
If the state doesn’t control the market, some other large company will.
I’ve said before that I don’t buy a lot of Marx’s economic theories.
Having a good equal the labor put into it makes no sense as a product has no definitive connection with its labor over time.
I do agree with the whole demand supply dynamic; but again, that’s not how capitalism works. For example people don’t always buy goods because they want them for their function, but for their value. From oil to apartments many goods sell based off of the numerical value assigned to them (which is artificial in nature being as the relative function of two things does not produce a universal number or even a specific range).
And that is not considering that the producers who control the market target demand based off of consumer wealth, build for more demand via marketing, and withhold some amount of the supply to raise value in the demand, etc.
Universal pricing has nothing to do with trade and bartering. Trading a spear for a cow proves no numerical value as those two things have different values for the people using them, and represent different functions.
Pricing has no affect on function, as is The basis of trade. Yes currency was used to represent trade in a limited environment, but that is not what free market capitalism used currency for.
Free Markets: an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
Goods like tomatoes can’t be used as currency as it’s Function conflicts relatively with what it’s being compared to.
What don't you get, I'm not talking about universal pricing. I'm talking about every individuals evaluation (in its definitive meaning) of a good, product, or service.
Consider the following scenario...
Suppose you have a widget, it removes earwax, we have no formal currency. How can I obtain your earwax removal widget? We trade, goods, products or services for goods products or services. I have a range of things I'm prepared to trade for your widget, that range depends on my evaluation of the widget, so I'll trade a Jim Dunlop Jazz III pick, or some broken headphones, maybe an onion, because I don't really have a need, I've got a box of such functional widgets in the bathroom. Now you have your own evaluation, and this widget took six months to create start to finish, and it's your first prototype so you'd like my Jackson USA Soloist and the picks, and my Amps, and my backup Ibanez RG, and my headphones, and UAD Apollo Twin.
Trades not going to happen.
If we just say there's a currency call 'em Groats. I'll pay up to 1/2 a groat, you'd like around 8000 Groats.
Its for the same product, even with currency we do not have universal pricing, we have our own evaluations of the desirability of the earwax widget.
Further let's bring in $ and the full market. We still don't have universal pricing, you never notice how the "Last Chance Gas 300 miles" gas stations are always between 50 cents to a buck a gallon more expensive? If pricing is universal then that wouldn't happen, further if the gas wasn't worth that extra at that point of service, the business would fail, thus not only undercutting "universal pricing" but demonstrating variant valuation of a common commodity.
There are no solutions, only trade offs —-Thomas Sowell
I'm not very familiar with Mr. Sowell's work. Would it make sense (either from your or his perspective) to compare or define 'trade offs' to be similar to what is meant by the word 'compromise'?
Compromise, or 'trade offs', imho, are essential in a democracy because there are no ideal or perfect solutions. Please see use of the 'Nirvana' or 'Perfect Solution' logical fallacies:
Quote:
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.
No matter how you cut it, we human beings are not perfect. Mr. Voltaire said, 'The perfect is the enemy of good.' No one yet has been able to fool Mother Nature.
Also consider Michael Joseph Oakeshott: "To try to do something which is inherently impossible is always a corrupting enterprise."
What don't you get, I'm not talking about universal pricing. I'm talking about every individuals evaluation (in its definitive meaning) of a good, product, or service.
Consider the following scenario...
Suppose you have a widget, it removes earwax, we have no formal currency. How can I obtain your earwax removal widget? We trade, goods, products or services for goods products or services. I have a range of things I'm prepared to trade for your widget, that range depends on my evaluation of the widget, so I'll trade a Jim Dunlop Jazz III pick, or some broken headphones, maybe an onion, because I don't really have a need, I've got a box of such functional widgets in the bathroom. Now you have your own evaluation, and this widget took six months to create start to finish, and it's your first prototype so you'd like my Jackson USA Soloist and the picks, and my Amps, and my backup Ibanez RG, and my headphones, and UAD Apollo Twin.
Trades not going to happen.
If we just say there's a currency call 'em Groats. I'll pay up to 1/2 a groat, you'd like around 8000 Groats.
Its for the same product, even with currency we do not have universal pricing, we have our own evaluations of the desirability of the earwax widget.
Further let's bring in $ and the full market. We still don't have universal pricing, you never notice how the "Last Chance Gas 300 miles" gas stations are always between 50 cents to a buck a gallon more expensive? If pricing is universal then that wouldn't happen, further if the gas wasn't worth that extra at that point of service, the business would fail, thus not only undercutting "universal pricing" but demonstrating variant valuation of a common commodity.
Bartering with money has existed for thousands of years before even the Bronze Age; in fact even the first bordered state used currency.
That is not capitalism. Modern industrial capitalism is the valuing of capital for the formulation of profit.
What does that mean, it means the private ownership of wealth is not exchanged based off of desired function, which is what you were describing.
Your system can be seen in all societies, and I don’t mind if people people trade their personal property but that is not a market system.
Even in your own example of oil, pricing has a standard, there could be some fluctuations, but at one point in time different vendors don’t deal with customers based on their own products offering varying prices to each.
And that applies to alternative currencies like gold or bitcoin, they have to be backed by some number in dollars so that all vendors understand the worth of that material despite the fact it has no use to them (and therefore no value to them).
Personally I’m against currency as a tool of trade because it requires so authority to recognize broad numerical value. But that is neither her nor there.
Free Market capitalism is not free trade between people, that is why markets are wanted to be controlled by large businesses, the costumer is not independent to each vendor, but an added value to the capital being sold. When one costumer adds numerical sales (either through money or the market value of some good) to a certain good, the market value of that good rises despite the fact that that number has no connection to the relative function of that good.
Fluctuations don’t change market value. And that is why you have oil and car cartels, the larger percentage of the market one power controls, the greater control over consumption (as again, consumption is handled by value of the good, not the personal trade between a vendor and a costumer as that vendor needs to make a profit or lose access to that good or the materials needed to make it).
Philosophy of Economics
“Philosophy of Economics” consists of inquiries concerning (a) rational choice, (b) the appraisal of economic outcomes, institutions and processes, and (c) the ontology of economic phenomena and the possibilities of acquiring knowledge of them.
There are many lively interactions between normative economics and moral philosophy.
libertarianism
Libertarianism is a family of views in political philosophy. Libertarians strongly value individual freedom and see this as justifying strong protections for individual freedom. Thus, libertarians insist that justice poses stringent limits to coercion. While people can be justifiably forced to do certain things (most obviously, to refrain from violating the rights of others) they cannot be coerced to serve the overall good of society, or even their own personal good.
paternalism
Nobody is coerced. The choice set remains the same. No significant costs or incentives are attached to the choices the agent faces.
Basically, the definition of paternalism in Libertarian Paternalism is focused solely on the fact that nudges are being used to make the agents being nudged better off.
egalitarianism
The left-libertarian holds that the doctrine of ownership must provide for fair treatment of each successive generation, and this requires that each new person has a right to an equal share of the value of unimproved resources or to some similar entitlement. The right-libertarian holds that the Lockean Proviso fully accommodates the legitimate claims of new persons. On this view, there is no fundamental right to an equal share in any sense. Luck plays a legitimate role in the operation of a natural rights regime. Granted, it is bad luck for me if I am born uncharming and lacking in good lucks and others are not voluntarily willing to enter into romance or friendship with me, but my distressed condition does not tend to show that my rights have been violated. And granted, it is bad luck for me if I come late on the scene and those who came first happen to be far better off in material wealth prospects than I, but the fact that there are unequal prospects does not tend to show that my rights have been violated. Provided the Lockean proviso is continuously satisfied and the appropriations by others leave me no worse off than I would have been under continued free use, my being worse off than others gives me no moral complaint against their property holdings.
economic justice
Apart from this formal analysis of rights, economic theory is not very well connected to libertarian philosophy, since economic models show that, apart from the very specific context of perfect competition with complete markets, perfect information, no externalities and no public goods, the laisser-faire allocation is typically inefficient and arbitrarily unequal. Therefore libertarian philosophers do not find much help or inspiration in economic theory, and there is little cross-fertilization in this area.
______________
In conclusion of one of my earlier posts, the door that can be anything I want it to be, while the idea is great so as to gain personal perspective, it is of little inspiration to libertarian philosophers in economic theory. You're right theories are just that, thus the door remains in part or as a whole a door.
I've read posted in this thread in essence, the libertarian ideas are great, but only up to a point, then there is fuzzy on the details.
And that applies to alternative currencies like gold or bitcoin, they have to be backed by some number in dollars
Bitcoins have value because they are useful as a form of money. ... In short, Bitcoin is backed by mathematics. With these attributes, all that is required for a form of money to hold value is trust and adoption. In the case of Bitcoin, this can be measured by its growing base of users, merchants, and startups. __________
an agreed upon amount ... backed by mathematics. (i think therefore i am )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
views plural ...
)
