what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver)

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

There "I" go again.

Well perhaps "we" doesn't include "you". "You" need not have responded.

Ahem; I'm not big on telling people that they can't or needn't speak. This is a red flag for me. I'm also unhappy with the different versions of "we" and "you" flying around, generic or otherwise.

Take time to make the conversation meaningful and about the topic.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by davar55

Or maybe put capitalism in the context of the alternate basic types of economic system (like socialism, communism, etc., which we know are failed theories) and explain why it works well in theory and could be perfected in legal practice?

You compare a theoretical capitalism with the reality of systems that only used the name of communism or socialism. For instance Lenin built a system based on dictatorship of his party and state capitalism (cfr his numerous writings and speeches where he spoke about this.) While some countries are calling or have called themselves communist, by the definition of communism they were and are not.

In all your discussions you only use arguments of faith (which is a of a paradox for someone claiming to be an atheist :-) I miss rational arguments.

Jacob

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

Ahem; I'm not big on telling people that they can't or needn't speak. This is a red flag for me. I'm also unhappy with the different versions of "we" and "you" flying around, generic or otherwise.

Take time to make the conversation meaningful and about the topic.

You're right and I apologize / take it back. Anyone can contribute anything they want anytime.

"About the topic" ? This thread has had more titles than the grandsons of the Queen!
(How many is that, "I" might ask.)

[davar55]

Originally Posted by S485122

You compare a theoretical capitalism with the reality of systems that only used the name of communism or socialism. For instance Lenin built a system based on dictatorship of his party and state capitalism (cfr his numerous writings and speeches where he spoke about this.) While some countries are calling or have called themselves communist, by the definition of communism they were and are not.
In all your discussions you only use arguments of faith (which is a of a paradox for someone claiming to be an atheist :-) I miss rational arguments.

Theoretical Capitalism: Capitalism as it should be.

By what definition of communism was Lenin's dictatorship not communist?
If you want a solid definition of Capitalism, as it should be,
contrast it with actual socialist and communist experiences of the past and present.

Oh I am an atheist, an anti-communist atheist. My views may be my own, but no "faith" is involved.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

You're right and I apologize / take it back. Anyone can contribute anything they want anytime.

"About the topic" ? This thread has had more titles than the grandsons of the Queen!
(How many is that, "I" might ask.)

The title follows Japanese and sign language rules in that it has a topic and comment structure. The topic is capitalism and freedom. Anything after the semicolon or any tectonic shifts of capitalism capitalization may be considered as commentary.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

The title follows Japanese and sign language rules in that it has a topic and comment structure. The topic is capitalism and freedom. Anything after the semicolon or any tectonic shifts of capitalism capitalization may be considered as commentary.

I'm not really complaining about the mod title privilege,
just now I'm not always sure what "we" ("I") 're ('m)
talking about. S'ok.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

I'm not really complaining about the mod title privilege,
just now I'm not always sure what "we" ("I") 're ('m)
talking about. S'ok.

That, honestly, is why there have been frequent requests for definitions. Not because we don't know what words mean but for a desire to know what someone else means when word usage differs significantly from one's own understanding or usage. It is a sincere effort or desire to mutually communicate on a topic.

[ewmayer]

Relevant to the thread's theme of "Perfect isentropic inviscid ideal-gas capitalism in an isolated spherical control volume":

Why the Claims Neoliberals Make About Markets Are Wrong | Naked Capitalism

It is a truth universally acknowledged by all good citizens that markets are the only way to organize a society. The implication is that the role of government is to support and protect the operations of markets, and little else. I’ve been looking at this in a series of posts. It turns out that the claims about markets reach back to neoclassical analysis by William Stanley Jevons, and mirrored by other neoclassical writers. In his book The Theory of Political Economy, available online here, Jevons claims to prove that markets maximize utility for all participants. Economists generally, and especially neoliberal economists, take that proof at face value and have exalted it into a principle for the organization of society. The proof doesn’t stand up to close examination.

Some excellent reader comments, too. Note that the book referenced by reader "Carla" by Michael Glennon is also freely available online in PDF form at the Harvard National Security Journal website.

And here is a link to the Boston Globe Review of same. (This should really be cross-posted in both the 'electile dysfunction' and 'spying on its citizens' threads.)

Re. the reader-comments subtheme of cooperation as an alternative to government-guided markets, I would query "what is the original purpose of 'government of the people' other than to serve for 'cooperation at large scale'?"

[only_human]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Relevant to the thread's theme of "Perfect isentropic inviscid ideal-gas capitalism in an isolated spherical control volume":

Why the Claims Neoliberals Make About Markets Are Wrong | Naked Capitalism

Some excellent reader comments, too. Note that the book referenced by reader "Carla" by Michael Glennon is also freely available online in PDF form at the Harvard National Security Journal website.

And here is a link to the Boston Globe Review of same. (This should really be cross-posted in both the 'electile dysfunction' and 'spying on its citizens' threads.)

Re. the reader-comments subtheme of cooperation as an alternative to government-guided markets, I would query "what is the original purpose of 'government of the people' other than to serve for 'cooperation at large scale'?"

Nice article. Of course I was already favorably disposed by the Jane Austen opening.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by only_human

That, honestly, is why there have been frequent requests for definitions. Not because we don't know what words mean but for a desire to know what someone else means when word usage differs significantly from one's own understanding or usage. It is a sincere effort or desire to mutually communicate on a topic.

I've lost track of Xilman's definition of capitalism, perhaps he'll reissue it.

OK, as a preliminary, open to discussion:
"a money based economic social system based on (what he said) and
private enterprise and protection of individual rights including property."

There must be money or it isn't capitalism.
Limited government is a consequence, not part of the definition.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by davar55

I've lost track of Xilman's definition of capitalism, perhaps he'll reissue it.

OK, as a preliminary, open to discussion:
"a money based economic social system based on (what he said) and
private enterprise and protection of individual rights including property."

o Who gets to issue said money, in what forms, and value tied-to/set-by what?

o How does the right (or not) of government to levy taxes fit in?

o How would fractional (or more accurately, fictional) reserve banking as currently practiced around the world fit in (or not)?

o You speak easily of 'limited government' - what powers (if any) would government have to regulate the 'free markets' in order to prevent abuses?

o How would you (or not) limit the influence of monied interests on government, crafting of laws and regulations, and on the electoral process?

o What provisions would there be (or not) for protection of 'the commons'? For instance, if I discovered oil under my property, would I be permitted to freely drill for it and exploit it in the fullest and finest capitalistic fashion?

Now, some sample what-if scenarios for you to run through your nascent economic/social model:

o Bill X. owns a US-based Uranium-mining, refining and reprocessing company. Bill wishes to sell certain quantities of enriched Uranium and reactor-extracted Plutonium to the governments of Iran, North Korea, Syria and Israel, all of whom promise to use the materials for peaceful purposes only, that is, in civilian nuclear power generation. Would he need anyone's say-so to do so?

o Sally Y. own a US-based chemical company. She wishes to sell certain quantities of dual-use chemicals which have legitimate industrial as well as nerve-gas and blistering-agent uses to various governments around the world, as well as to certain private organizations who wish to remain unnamed, but all of whom promise to use the materials for peaceful purposes only. Any problems? What, if any, constraints should Sally face here, and who would enforce them?

o My little grandmother was recently the victim of a financial scam which cost her her life's savings. The scammer was caught and arrested but no appreciable amount of the funds he stole from multiple victims was recovered. As a result poor old dear gran was unable to pay her monthly health-insurance premium and had her coverage canceled by the insurer. She also suffered a fall last week which caused a severe concussion and broken hip. Having recently lost my job and with a family to support, I cannot afford to pay her rapidly mounting medical bills, and the hospital is threatening to dump her in her bed at home unless we come up with $100,000 good-faith payment. What should we do?

==================

Fundamentalist capitalism has led to US decline and loss of influence