[QUOTE=only_human;426102]My dictionary doesn't look like your dictionary.[/QUOTE]Neither does mine, but I've been saying that for a long time.

[QUOTE=only_human;426102]My dictionary doesn't look like your dictionary.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=xilman;426103]Neither does mine, but I've been saying that for a long time.[/QUOTE]
Then I suggest the off-line Random House College Dictionary.
It's better than any other I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=davar55;426111]Then I suggest the off-line Random House College Dictionary.
It's better than any other I've ever seen.[/QUOTE]
Pilot error. Whooosh :max:

[QUOTE=davar55;426111]Then I suggest the off-line Random House College Dictionary.
It's better than any other I've ever seen.[/QUOTE]OED? Chambers?

From dictionary.com:
[CODE]an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution,
and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations,
especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.[/CODE]

"BUT THAT'S NOT RANDOM HOUSE OFFLINE EDITION!" you may say. Never you fear!

[quote]Dictionary.com is an online dictionary founded in May 1995[1] by Brian Kariger and Daniel Fierro as part of Lexico Publishing, which also included Thesaurus.com and Reference.com.[2]
[B]The content for the site is based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary[/B], with other content from the Collins English Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary and others.[3][/quote]

Thanks Wikipedia!


Now explain how Martin Shkreli is a threat to capitalism (aside from showing what capitalism is actually all about).

[QUOTE=wombatman;426152]From dictionary.com:
[CODE]an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution,
and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations,
especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.[/CODE]"BUT THAT'S NOT RANDOM HOUSE OFFLINE EDITION!" you may say. Never you fear!
Thanks Wikipedia!
Now explain how Martin Shkreli is a threat to capitalism (aside from showing what capitalism is actually all about).[/QUOTE]

A definition of capitalism that doesn't include money (capital) is at best incomplete.

Those who violate other's economic-based rights are a threat to others, so
by generalization, a threat to all. If not checked, then a "threat to capitalism".

Production of wealth is not capital? Then what is it?

And how did Shkreli violate anyone's "economic-based" rights (and for that matter, define "economic-based rights" since you're just throwing in terms now). He raised the price of a drug that his company purchased the rights to. Are you saying that the government should set the price for a private company? If not, then why should he have not raised the price to increase the production of wealth (again, there's that money) for his company as capitalism demands?

[QUOTE=wombatman;426180]Production of wealth is not capital? Then what is it?

And how did Shkreli violate anyone's "economic-based" rights (and for that matter, define "economic-based rights" since you're just throwing in terms now). He raised the price of a drug that his company purchased the rights to. Are you saying that the government should set the price for a private company? If not, then why should he have not raised the price to increase the production of wealth (again, there's that money) for his company as capitalism demands?[/QUOTE]

I actually would have no problem with a private company raising the price of a medication in a non-exigent-public-health-emergency context, if consumers were in fact free to seek other sources for the drug, or an equivalent. In the case here, Daraprim has been around for over 60 years, and there are no patent-violation issues, but at the same time the fact that [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimethamine]the market for it is so small[/url] that no generic manufacturer exists is precisely the reason the Shkrelis of the world have targeted such cases for their predatory-pricing schemes. Again no problem with that in principle, *except* that US consumers are at the same time banned from importing cheap overseas-manufactured versions (of this and most other drugs) due to our dear lawgivers on Capitol Hill having passed pharma-sponsored anti-free-market laws to that effect. Given that huge bit of government anti-free-marketeering there is every reason for Congress to act to prevent the same pharma lobby from profiting even more outrageously than they already do due to Act of Congress, by engaging in truly outrageous price-gouging, which literally puts lives at risk, in that it forces a choice between life and bankruptcy for an extremely vulnerable class of the citizenry, those whose lives depend on access to the drug.

Similarly I have nothing against free markets - again this does not imply a complete lack of regulation except in Dave's alternate universe - in the Big Finance sector, but the massive amount of government-sponsored corporate welfare in the form of bailouts and de facto legal immunity for the worst offenders means that this sector has already been liberated via government fiat from the deserved free-market fate of all business models which end up blowing themselves up due to excessive risk taking and fraud, namely failure of the business and prosecution of the criminals involved in such frauds. Again, you can't propose corporate welfare and above-the-law status for the elites and 'free markets' (including such 'free choices' as mandated financial transfers to the crooks in the form of ZIRP and government bailout facilities) for everyone else and expect to be taken seriously.

In summary, regarding capitalism, the holders of outsized portions of capital will *always* try to rig the playing field in their own favor, thus 'pure free-market capitalism' will always remain an unattainable ideal. Only by accepting this and proceeding accordingly can we have a chance at realizing at least a workable compromise, which harnesses the wealth-creating power of entrepreneurial free enterprise while at the same time curbing the worst of the wretched excesses which are also endemic to such a system.

Bravo! :goodposting::wombatman:

[QUOTE=wombatman;426180]Production of wealth is not capital? Then what is it?

And how did Shkreli violate anyone's "economic-based" rights (and for that matter, define "economic-based rights" since you're just throwing in terms now). He raised the price of a drug that his company purchased the rights to. Are you saying that the government should set the price for a private company? If not, then why should he have not raised the price to increase the production of wealth (again, there's that money) for his company as capitalism demands?[/QUOTE]

Wealth is measure in a capitalist system by money. It is not money itself.

Where does your incomplete definition and understanding of
capitalism and money say anything about "demands"?

Only non-Capitalists make extreme, irrational demands on freedom.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;426183]...
In summary, regarding capitalism, the holders of outsized portions of capital will *always* try to rig the playing field in their own favor, thus 'pure free-market capitalism' will always remain an unattainable ideal. Only by accepting this and proceeding accordingly can we have a chance at realizing at least a workable compromise, which harnesses the wealth-creating power of entrepreneurial free enterprise while at the same time curbing the worst of the wretched excesses which are also endemic to such a system.[/QUOTE]

Perfect capitalism, to the extent that it is approximated, which is not now
nor ever yet has been the case, is NOT rigged. By the rich nor the poor.
It is the only such system. The wretched excesses you refer to are due
to the extent that our economic and legal system fall short.