"... On Jan 25, 4:58 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
> In the end I suspect we could go on forever Gruff - perhaps to > discover we operate on similar definitions! Probably very true, especially the part about operating on similar definitions. > The issue is that when people discuss "capitalism" they are often stuck in > chronic, soaked-up positions they don't understand themselves. This could be said about most people who open their mouths about economics, even many of those in government and the financial industry (even myself at times.) Then there are those who only dig deep enough to find a way to enrich their own pockets. I think very few are actually interested in or understand much about economics and capitalism. > One interpretation of your distribution and exchange stuff > is that of parasitic behaviour and recent bwanking looks very much > like massively extended middle-man work failing to add an value at all > and eventually crashing the system. Okay, basics then. Any economic system and most especially capitalism is, to my thinking, based in the simplicity of supply and demand which requires capital to function. It has to begin here because we are all on the demand side as we all need and consume goods and services to function. And most of us are on the supply side as well, working to produce those goods and services and deliver them (for a price of course -- this is the capital in capitalist) to the end user -- the consumer. I know consumer is a dirty word in some circles but it is still an apt description of each of our functions in any type of economy. We each need food, clothing, shelter and transportation to live. They are the basics and we are well beyond the means of 6+ billion of us to eke out our sustenance individually without the support and cooperation of others. We live in a world that requires a great deal of trust in our fellow men and women, whether we like it or not. We place a great deal of trust in the individuals comprising society just by waking up in the morning and walking out the door, let alone getting into a car and driving to work. Without that mutual trust that each of us will maintain and abide by the rule of law society would not function and would have fallen apart a long time ago. Our economic environment demands that same trust. Fortunately that trust is mostly well- founded since we all manage to get along and keep things functioning -- for the most part. > What I'm after is some grounded notion of what we actually get in > transactions. Hmm. What do we get out of capitalist transaction? First of all via possession of sufficient capital we get (demand) a means of acquiring goods and services by returning a medium of exchange (capital in the form of cash or credit) to the producer of said goods and services (supply). This is a cycle or a closed system if you prefer, but I think it defines what each of us actually get in these capitalist transactions. The supplier, if operating under a credible principle of capitalist business and a basic morality, will recover the cost of goods and labor plus a profit which allows the supplier to expand business and take home a livable income. But that supplier is also a consumer. The supplier consumes goods and labor in the process of acquiring the means to offer services and goods, thus adding one more link in the supply & demand chain. The supplier also become demand in this sense as well as when the supplier goes home and consumes shelter, food, clothing and the other necessities and luxuries of life. However, if proper husbandry of this system is not maintained -- if greed and corruption are not prevented from raising their ugly heads -- the system gets out of balance ... it goes all higgledy-piggledy, which I think aptly describes our current situation. > I have an argument > that capitalism actually prevents wealth creation - it certainly did > in the old Soviet areas and I think I see this every day here - but I > don't see this as necessarily an anti-capitalist argument, just as an > attempt to do "tropical fish realism" in terms of work and reward. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. It does not appear to be an argument that capitalism prevents wealth. I don't think it's possible to call the old Soviet system capitalism in any way, shape or form. I also have no idea what tropical fish realism is and how it relates to work and reward (supply and demand). What I do know is that morality plays a critical part in the proper functioning of any economic system, but capitalism because of it's complex nature, is ripe ground for greed and corruption to arise. > Around the world, there are shits who rip everyone else off - it may > well be that we don't focus enough on stopping this and that it is > this that allows work to create wealth. Economics is a phlogiston > theory - it hasn't established basics on which to operate. Herein lies a defect of capitalism ... or rather a defect in the practitioners of capitalism. A capitalist economic system devoid of morality is merely smash and grab, each out for what he or she can get and to hell with the rest of the world. The simple solution to our current crisis is to figure out how to entice and encourage people to behave morally, to take only a fair share and give a fair price for reasonable quality services and goods. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
