Money was around long before capitalism, nor is it exclusive to capitalism.

[QUOTE=kladner;416140]Money was around long before capitalism, nor is it exclusive to capitalism.[/QUOTE]

Not so. Money equals capital, as in capitalism. Capitalism, in its inchoate form, began
with the invention of money. It marked the beginning of trade by money, instead of
pure barter exchange, which is not as efficient or generalizable. Socailism, on the
other hand, is the extension of the family concept, and families have a dynamic that
doesn't involve money exchange - one's parents don't sell you your milk.

Capitalism, the use of money, was an improvement on the socialism concept.
It brought progress that family alone cannot. It brought civilization. It is a
very civilized way by which humanity acquires and produces its resources
and lets us trade to survive.

Thanks so much for sharing. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=davar55;416137]Well, I can ... but first, where do you stand on those fates?
Are you for or against either final result?
[/QUOTE]

Why are you so afraid to explain your statements? His thoughts on the statements have no bearing on your explanation for them. It's also funny that you differentiate money from bartering. How is paying money any different than paying with chickens (aside from things like ease of carrying it around)? You are exchanging one thing for another at an agreed upon exchange rate.

[QUOTE=wombatman;416147]Why are you so afraid to explain your statements? His thoughts on the statements have no bearing on your explanation for them. It's also funny that you differentiate money from bartering. How is paying money any different than paying with chickens (aside from things like ease of carrying it around)? You are exchanging one thing for another at an agreed upon exchange rate.[/QUOTE]
Where do you see fear? Foundations are critical.

The concept of exchange rate, or price, depends on there being a unit of exchange, i.e. the units of money.

Money becomes a singled-out commodity that "lets you into" a market based on it.
Without a singled-out money item, every barter transaction is based on one-to-one
negotiation, leaving pricing over the market place impossible.

[QUOTE=kladner;416144]Thanks so much for sharing. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

You're so welcome. :smile:

[QUOTE=davar55;416148]Where do you see fear? Foundations are critical.

The concept of exchange rate, or price, depends on there being a unit of exchange, i.e. the units of money.

Money becomes a singled-out commodity that "lets you into" a market based on it.
Without a singled-out money item, every barter transaction is based on one-to-one
negotiation, leaving pricing over the market place impossible.[/QUOTE]

You're right, it may not be fear. Given that you've still not explained your statements, it's more accurately ascribed to inability or unwillingness to answer.

As for money, which form of money? Gold-standard? Silver-standard? Paper money that relies, essentially, on a government's word? Which government? I mean, countries that are quite socialist (though not fully so) use money.

Lastly, how do you define "perfect" capitalism? To me, the word "perfect" implies that it is capitalism carried out to its ideals--namely, that there is a perfect free market and rational actors in that market. Both of those are why the idea is also bunk. People are not rational actors. In addition, a perfect free market would rely on complete availability of information for consumers to make informed decisions about where they consumed, where they worked, and so on.

Would [I]your[/I] "perfect capitalism" have any restrictions to avoid monopolies? How about the legal construct of bankruptcy? Would companies have to reveal all of their secrets so that consumers could make a fully informed choice? Would there be any sort of governmental backing of banking (think FDIC/NCUA)? For that matter, would the government be involved in the currency at all?

It's time for you to actually step up and defend your statements with more than "because I said so."

[QUOTE=wombatman;416158]You're right, it may not be fear. Given that you've still not explained your statements, it's more accurately ascribed to inability or unwillingness to answer.
As for money, which form of money? Gold-standard? Silver-standard? Paper money that relies, essentially, on a government's word? Which government? I mean, countries that are quite socialist (though not fully so) use money.

Lastly, how do you define "perfect" capitalism? To me, the word "perfect" implies that it is capitalism carried out to its ideals--namely, that there is a perfect free market and rational actors in that market. Both of those are why the idea is also bunk. People are not rational actors. In addition, a perfect free market would rely on complete availability of information for consumers to make informed decisions about where they consumed, where they worked, and so on.

Would [I]your[/I] "perfect capitalism" have any restrictions to avoid monopolies? How about the legal construct of bankruptcy? Would companies have to reveal all of their secrets so that consumers could make a fully informed choice? Would there be any sort of governmental backing of banking (think FDIC/NCUA)? For that matter, would the government be involved in the currency at all?

It's time for you to actually step up and defend your statements with more than "because I said so."[/QUOTE]
Any form of money is money.
Some forms of money are better than others, depends on the country and circumstances.
The idea of perfect capitalism is indeed capitalism carried out to its ideals, which means
maximizing economic freedom. This does not mean no government, only minimum government
involvement in the economy. This means just enough government to protect our rights, not anarchy
as some libertarians advocate. The free market is protected by government's involvement in policing.
It is not a bunk concept, but like a limit, is arbitrarily approachable. It depends on rational actors,
in general, but that just means people acting both for their own self-interest and within a clearly
defined system of law that forbids and punishes economic and other transgressors (those who
resort to violence, fraud, etc). Perfect information is also approachable, as a limit, in the wake
of the concept of transparency. Not every person will always act rationally or on full knowledge
of everything relevant to their actions, but this is not necessary for perfect capitalism to work,
just so long as most people are rational and self-interested and that those who aren't are not
allowed to take over, as under communism or anarchy or totalitarianism, or theocracy.
Monopolies that sometimes occurr under capitalism cannot be long maintained without
government supporting them by force; the free market is the check against permanent monopolies.
Bankruptcies can be defined by law. Companies, like individuals, can keep their secrets, so
long as they behave lawfully. This does not violate consumers' rights; perfect information is
ultimately an invalid concept, since we are not omniscient. Banks could very well be insured
by government emergency backup funds; the degree of such backing could be set by law,
as much or as little as needed so long as individual rights are protected. A government can
and generally would establish its currency, or participate in an international currency such
as the euro (good luck to them). These concepts are not anathema to the approachable limit
that is perfect capitalism.
Capitalism is not strict libertarianism, which basically eliminates all government and would
probably result in anarchy and chaos. It is obvious where the misconception that
perfect capitalism is anarchy comes from - the idea that freedom is license.

I've answered all your questions, but I'm sure you have more, legitimate I might add,
questions and requests for elaboration and clarification. Economics is complicated,
but the basic principles can be elaborated. Communism and socialism must fail
because they rely on the vices of men, not their virtues. Where people are free to
act in their own best interest, the tendency is to act rationally because that is most
consonant with their survival and rational values. The frauds or incompetents that
may occasionally occur - and much rarer when perfect capitalism is the rule -
can be stopped or made to have minimal impact only under a free economic system,
which is capitalism.

I sincerely appreciate your detailed and thoughtful answer. I still disagree with some of your fundamental ideas (that a majority of people will act rationally, for instance), but I think your answers will encourage more debate since there's something to work with. :smile:

[QUOTE=wombatman;416200]I sincerely appreciate your detailed and thoughtful answer. I still disagree with some of your fundamental ideas (that a majority of people will act rationally, for instance), but I think your answers will encourage more debate since there's something to work with. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Good that we now have something to work with.

:davar55:

:smile:

[QUOTE=davar55;416274]Good that we now have something to work with.
:davar55: :smile:[/QUOTE]

I did not mean to cut off discussion of the issues.