bee.. beer? what sort of a forum do you think this is?
Is capitalism exploiting you?
- Thread starter simon12
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
bee.. beer? what sort of a forum do you think this is?
micklupulo
Landlord.
Raise (a glass of) a Dark Revolution!
To bring a little levity, I am reminded of this thought-provoking and reflective exploration of the Industrial Revolution...
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2013
- Messages
- 6,275
- Reaction score
- 6,009
Capitalism doesn't exploit anyone, the employee offers his services for an agreed remuneration. What could be more simple.The short answer to the question is: yes, capitalism exploits everyone who isn't a capitalist.
Well, that depends on your idea of work, what an economy is, and for whom it should function.
Say you had a good idea for a business, you don't have collateral to fund the idea, you go to a businessman and ask for help fund your business. Should the businessman not be rewarded for putting up the capital?
If later you bought out the businessman and now were running a company with say 30 employees. Are you now going to split the net profit from the business between the 30 employees and yourself.
Doesn't matter what system you try to make there will always be leaders and followers, that will never change. Communism/socialism can never work because we are all different. There are no free rides in life, your here once for a very short time, it's up to you to make the most of it and provide for your family to the best of your ability.
Argentum
Regular.
My brief paraphrase of Adam Smith: Capitalism clearly does not exist to the benefit of the common good. In fact it exists solely to the benefit of individual self interest. But in a world where everyone is FULLY FREE to pursue their own desires for rational self interest (yes, what we commonly refer to as selfishness), as if by an INVISIBLE HAND the common good and common welfare are promoted via capitalism, despite no such intent from any individual capitalist.
JFK reiterated Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' this way: "A rising tide lifts all boats."
A capitalist does not extort or rob existing wealth from anyone. A capitalist creates "new" wealth, and retains a portion of it solely to the benefit of self interest. The difference in value between a tree and a table (meaning here that which remains after all expenses) is quite literally new wealth that never existed before the tree was converted into a table. Ditto for a stack of paper turned into a book. Ditto the creation of music, etc... There is no extortion or robbery of existing wealth involved in the process of NEW wealth creation, albeit that there is risk to existing wealth if the endeavor to create new wealth fails. It is primarily government that parasitically disrupts the simple eloquence of this process via endless myriads of regulations and taxations. And it is government that makes the claim that it must do so whereby to mitigate the exploitation and robbery and greedy selfishness that would result from capitalism if left to be free (I.E., it is government that promotes the notion that capitalism extorts and robs from existing wealth). One might see in this government action what is referred to as "projection".
What is missing from the invisible hand of capitalism (sans for the parasitical government disruption and outright corruption of it via regulation and taxation) is force and compulsion. What other economic system would definitively operate to both individual and mutual benefit without the application of force and compulsion (I.E., as if by an invisible hand)?
I ask: What harm has twisting and distorting rational self interest into, and/or forcing it to reside exclusively under the umbrella of 'selfishness' brought to mankind? Why is it selfish to pursue and achieve rational self interest, or a structured hierarchy of rational self interests?
JFK reiterated Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' this way: "A rising tide lifts all boats."
A capitalist does not extort or rob existing wealth from anyone. A capitalist creates "new" wealth, and retains a portion of it solely to the benefit of self interest. The difference in value between a tree and a table (meaning here that which remains after all expenses) is quite literally new wealth that never existed before the tree was converted into a table. Ditto for a stack of paper turned into a book. Ditto the creation of music, etc... There is no extortion or robbery of existing wealth involved in the process of NEW wealth creation, albeit that there is risk to existing wealth if the endeavor to create new wealth fails. It is primarily government that parasitically disrupts the simple eloquence of this process via endless myriads of regulations and taxations. And it is government that makes the claim that it must do so whereby to mitigate the exploitation and robbery and greedy selfishness that would result from capitalism if left to be free (I.E., it is government that promotes the notion that capitalism extorts and robs from existing wealth). One might see in this government action what is referred to as "projection".
What is missing from the invisible hand of capitalism (sans for the parasitical government disruption and outright corruption of it via regulation and taxation) is force and compulsion. What other economic system would definitively operate to both individual and mutual benefit without the application of force and compulsion (I.E., as if by an invisible hand)?
I ask: What harm has twisting and distorting rational self interest into, and/or forcing it to reside exclusively under the umbrella of 'selfishness' brought to mankind? Why is it selfish to pursue and achieve rational self interest, or a structured hierarchy of rational self interests?
Last edited:
Argentum
Regular.
I can now expand upon my post #31 to this thread involving the honesty of money:
Money itself is not wealth. Money is merely a portable and transferable and highly freely/universally accepted "proxy" for wealth. Wealth must first be expended commensurate with the 'price' of the proxy whereby to acquire it for use as money, and then such money (as a representative proxy) may be used as the means to 'effective' wealth transfer.
Fiat money (money brought into existence merely by mystically proclaiming "Let it be so", and then via "force" of law and the government gun being compelled into use as if it were a viable proxy for wealth, while simultaneously declaring it the only means whereby to pay taxes) completely distorts the core essence of honest money. And worse, fiat continuously devalues with the passing of time literally by baked in 'design' (as nominally controlled via attempting to stabilize interest rates"), giving rise to the artificial appearance of inflation and price increases, and leading to stored proxy value erosion as another means by which it fails to be money.
Dishonest money (sourced from "let it be so" at the point of the governments gun and taxing power) promotes and rewards corruption in all areas of its reach, and it greatly oppresses and devalues savings, compelling instead rapid expenditure whereby to attempt to avoid it's baked in devaluation over time. It fails in many ways to be a proxy for wealth.
Honest capitalism requires honest and freely accepted money with a just means of valuation whereby to establish it as a wealth proxy (which is done by purchasing it with real wealth). Fiat money separated from force and more importantly the fear of force has right close to zero value, if not factually zero value. Capitalism can't function properly with fiat money.
Money itself is not wealth. Money is merely a portable and transferable and highly freely/universally accepted "proxy" for wealth. Wealth must first be expended commensurate with the 'price' of the proxy whereby to acquire it for use as money, and then such money (as a representative proxy) may be used as the means to 'effective' wealth transfer.
Fiat money (money brought into existence merely by mystically proclaiming "Let it be so", and then via "force" of law and the government gun being compelled into use as if it were a viable proxy for wealth, while simultaneously declaring it the only means whereby to pay taxes) completely distorts the core essence of honest money. And worse, fiat continuously devalues with the passing of time literally by baked in 'design' (as nominally controlled via attempting to stabilize interest rates"), giving rise to the artificial appearance of inflation and price increases, and leading to stored proxy value erosion as another means by which it fails to be money.
Dishonest money (sourced from "let it be so" at the point of the governments gun and taxing power) promotes and rewards corruption in all areas of its reach, and it greatly oppresses and devalues savings, compelling instead rapid expenditure whereby to attempt to avoid it's baked in devaluation over time. It fails in many ways to be a proxy for wealth.
Honest capitalism requires honest and freely accepted money with a just means of valuation whereby to establish it as a wealth proxy (which is done by purchasing it with real wealth). Fiat money separated from force and more importantly the fear of force has right close to zero value, if not factually zero value. Capitalism can't function properly with fiat money.
micklupulo
Landlord.
Not wishing to be provocative but is there any connection between the meaning in Latin of your soubriquet and your apparent preoccupation with matters concerning money?
Argentum
Regular.
After giving a speech on a college campus, and during the question and answer period, a female student approached the microphone and asked Ayn Rand: "But who will care for the poor?". Ayn Rand calmly responded: "My dear, no one is stopping you.". The girl walked away despondent.
Last edited:
Argentum
Regular.
Yes, just look it up.
micklupulo
Landlord.
No sweat I have known the meaning since circa 1964!
micklupulo
Landlord.
Y
It has just dawned on me that you guys don't get irony!
Argentum
Regular.
In my case, at least part of this is due to my mild autism.
Cheshire Cat
Landlord.
God this thread is so boring I’m definitely having a beer.
micklupulo
Landlord.
Mea culpa
As a big fan of Jared Diamond, may I point out that Capitalism is merely the idea of investing to increase production?
As such, the much derided notion did not invent the pre-existing human traits of greed, envy, hatred or disdain, so strangely attributed in contemporary (and failed) ideology.
Western Europe pretty much gave up on this Capitalism post WW2 and so now we slowly return to its previous, societal, post-agricultural normality of feudalism.
In feudalism, the 1% own everything and rest, own not even the mud under their feet, they merely work on it.
As such, the much derided notion did not invent the pre-existing human traits of greed, envy, hatred or disdain, so strangely attributed in contemporary (and failed) ideology.
Western Europe pretty much gave up on this Capitalism post WW2 and so now we slowly return to its previous, societal, post-agricultural normality of feudalism.
In feudalism, the 1% own everything and rest, own not even the mud under their feet, they merely work on it.
Argentum
Regular.
A purely hypothetical thought experiment on fiat money as a legitimate proxy for wealth:
Lets assume that the Titanic was carrying two identical well sealed safes when it sank. One with multiple 400 Troy Ounce 99.999 fine gold central bank ingots, and one with what was back then considered to be the exact currency equivalent to the gold, but in fiat Pound Sterling and/or fiat US Dollar paper notes.
If you were on a "stealth" recovery ship, which safe would you most desire to recover? And why?
Lets assume that the Titanic was carrying two identical well sealed safes when it sank. One with multiple 400 Troy Ounce 99.999 fine gold central bank ingots, and one with what was back then considered to be the exact currency equivalent to the gold, but in fiat Pound Sterling and/or fiat US Dollar paper notes.
If you were on a "stealth" recovery ship, which safe would you most desire to recover? And why?
The one on the left - why because I am right-handed and ornamental bird baths don't make good cheese graters (usually)
