[TooFineAPoint]

(08-03-2016 11:55 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 10:20 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

But "capitalism" is not a sentient being that thinks for itself. That's why I think that quote, along with being infantile and immoral, is nonsensical.

As I understand the word, capitalism = the means of production are privately owned.

My takeaway from what DifferentT was saying is that you can't separate "idealistic capitalism" from "capitalism in reality" due to the element of human nature.

It's like when you bring up the rise of dictators and corruption to people arguing for communism, and they reply "Ah, but they weren't true communists, you see."

It's the no true Scotsman argument.

Yes, that kind of discussion devolves fast. That's why I was just making the point that "capitalism" doesn't act or think or plan. Probably the only time the "this is not actually capitalism" comeback is useful is when someone starts the discussion with "the US sucks for ___ reason and the US = capitalism so therefore capitalism sucks". Because there are so many problems with that statement, you almost need a blanket reply to begin.

I don't think that is what OP was saying, by the way. The thread started off thoughtful, with recognition of many moving parts. Just that last quote seemed silly and out of place, which is why I replied the way I did.

I think if we agree on the definition of capitalism that I gave, then we can more clearly separate situations out and see where the problem (from our various points of view) comes in.

But we need to be clear about language. Like when a criminal says "the gun went off" or "the bottle got the best of me", it is disingenuous and moves an individual into this weird acted upon state devoid of agency.

(08-03-2016 11:04 AM)Different T Wrote:  

@ toofine

Why do you say immoral?

The quote implies a nefarious nature to the concept of private ownership. It "reduces" human interaction to something less than human (soulless).

I find recognition of private property to be a major foundation of a moral, civilized people. So on that point I strongly disagree, as well as on the attribution of the reduction to an idea/system as opposed to an individual.

It may be true that, sometimes, in the pursuit of profit via his capital, a single individual ignores the humanity of the other actors around him. But it is not true that pursuing profit is exclusive to normal human interactions.

[Kid Twist]

^ Your last sentence, after all my reading and short time here, is the key.

It is, however, important to realize what is going on and from where we came.

Now, go out and DO. Amen.

[Mentavious]

(08-03-2016 08:08 AM)Different T Wrote:  

"Early stage capitalism (US 1790s-1860s) was much less intrusive and more entrepreneurial."

But we surely that this trend has a massive tech component (the government literally didn't possess the means to "intrude" as it does today) and was simply due to immature markets (we can still see the same phenomenon when a brand new product is introduced like the internet or most drones. Then, over time, legislation regarding the market is introduced at the behest of both the bureaucrats and the market participants). This seems to be exactly what happened with edible marijuana testing in CO. They originally said it was illegal to put in more than labeled (the govt just didn't want an "unsafe" product), but then changed to an "accurate labeling" standard.

Also possibly of note: another bitcoin site got hacked and prices tanked. How long before the "anti-government" crowd that has put a lot of wealth into this thing start wanting a little protection?

Yup.

Rich people don't want public transportation

For example, here in SE Michigan they are trying to get a yes vote on a mileage to get money for a new line of buses for new routes. Surprisingly it didn't pass, why? That would mean poor people would have more access to the rich areas.

Also, the 'liveable' part of Detroit stretches from the casino area, Ford Field/Comerica Park/New Hockey Stadium and maybe down Jefferson on the riverfront. I looked at condo/apartment prices and the current/soon to be residences are starting at 1500 a month. Mind you, to get fresh produce or meat you will have to drive some distance just to get them. The price makes no sense considering the state of Detroit.

[Different T]

Quote:

It's the no true Scotsman argument.

Partly. But keep the "Disney love"/blue-pill relationship analogy in mind. It's also that real-world Capitalism (we can call it private ownership since that seems to be what TooFineAPoint wants) doesn't resemble the stuff Rand and Mises write about. A large reason being that they project their morality onto it. Another large reason being that many of the issues with private ownership (accounting, externalities, etc) are not black and white/easily solved, and claims otherwise are very telling.

Quote:

The quote implies a nefarious nature to the concept of private ownership. It "reduces" human interaction to something less than human (soulless).

Re-reading my quote, I do not understand how you came to those conclusions.

Quote:

I find recognition of private property to be a major foundation of a moral, civilized people. So on that point I strongly disagree, as well as on the attribution of the reduction to an idea/system as opposed to an individual.

To be clear, you are claiming that no systems have goals? And that the goal of Capitalism isn't to accumulate more capital?

Your view is that Capitalism simply means private ownership and doesn't directly have anything to do with economics?

[TooFineAPoint]

Different T,

I didn't mean any quote by you, I meant the quote at the end of the OP about "...cash nexus".

My understanding of "capitalism" is private ownership of the means of production. Since economics is the concern with production, distribution, and consumption... then the idea of capitalism would certainly fall under that.

Yes, I am saying people (not systems) have goals. You and I may have the same end goal in mind, and yet employ different systems to reach that goal. Both systems may even achieve the goal (so we were both "right"), but at different costs (including time, energy, human life, gold, whatever).

Out of curiosity, what did Mises say about capitalism that you feel was not realistic?

[Different T]

Quote:

My understanding of "capitalism" is private ownership of the means of production. Since economics is the concern with production, distribution, and consumption... then the idea of capitalism would certainly fall under that.

Then it seems we can agree that "capitalism" would include more elements than simply "private ownership" such as the profit motive? It is very strange to hear somebody state that the economic system of capitalism has no goal (and more generally systems do not have goals). Dunno your thoughts on evolution, but are you saying that natural selection doesn't exist? How about the way a cell gradient works? Or are you only against the "anthropomorphizing" of calling it a "goal" because there isn't a human brain "thinking"? It's a very odd perspective.

Quote:

Out of curiosity, what did Mises say about capitalism that you feel was not realistic?

It was more generally about Austrians and the way they view any government intervention as "evil."

[Dr. Howard]

(08-03-2016 03:02 PM)Menace Wrote:  

Housing is expensive in cities particularly on the coasts. Housing is dirt cheap in the middle of the country. Real estate is all about location, so it's difficult to make blanket statements about it. In cities house prices get inflated because of schools and parents wanting "good schools," which means >70% white/asian usually. For example, compare prices in Bethesda, MD vs. Silver Spring, MD.

Women I sort of agree with, relatively speaking, but even then it's not as terrible everywhere as people make out (especially in cities), provided you are not broke AND have actual social intelligence/charm (this is much rarer than people let on).

The thing is, one's perspective is very dependent on one's financial circumstances and personality. The solution to most of these problems is make more money. The US is possibly the best place in the world to do that, even today.

I don't think it makes sense to pine for the days of yesteryear. Get better today.

This is the kind of positive thinking I enjoy. In any statistic that presents an 'average' its always good to remember that its an average that represents a population that is distributed around that mean.

If the average apartment rents for $600 and is based on a sample of 1000 rental units it gives you a sense of the environment. However, the only value that really matters to an individual is which specific one of those 1000 apartments they end up in. On an average of $600 it could be $200 or $1000. The price of YOUR apartment is what matters to you, the average isn't your cost.

In america, the variance is always broad, which is what makes it so great. Thats what opportunity is. In old soviet russia, if the average rent was $600 out of a sample of 1000 rental units, the variance would be zero...every apartment would be $600.

In America, you can still beat the average. If the average apartment is $600 you can still find one for $400. If the average guy only gets 4 different notches in his lifetime, you can still get 100. Not everyone can...thats what the average represents, but YOU can. Thats what variance and opportunity represent, to be great you have to find a way to be one of the outliers.

[nomadbrah]

Everyone should strive to beat the average and everyone here should be able to, based on smarts and wealth of information, but don't discount bad things can happen to everyone, sickness, divorce/breakups, mental problems, it can happen to anyone and what you would find then is that you will sink and sink quickly, there is zero real safety net now. I am tired of libertarians and successful right wing people trying to make it out as if everyone who isn't successful now is a loser. I used to think like that, but changed my thinking, the biggest obstacle nowadays is the feminist government siphoning off money and resources from the needy to the spoilt (women).

[Dr. Howard]

(08-04-2016 12:11 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Everyone should strive to beat the average and everyone here should be able to, based on smarts and wealth of information, but don't discount bad things can happen to everyone, sickness, divorce/breakups, mental problems, it can happen to anyone and what you would find then is that you will sink and sink quickly, there is zero real safety net now. I am tired of libertarians and successful right wing people trying to make it out as if everyone who isn't successful now is a loser. I used to think like that, but changed my thinking, the biggest obstacle nowadays is the feminist government siphoning off money and resources from the needy to the spoilt (women).

I agree that bad things happen, but that still doesn't mean you can't beat the average. Especially if you are a member of this forum. Divorce is a devastating setback, but not the end (spoken from experience). So that is a non-issue.

Even if you are stuck with disease its not the end. Be the best parapalegic you can be and beat that average. Man, I went to university with a guy who had some sort of genetic health defect, a heart transplant, weird looks including pale vampire like skin. What did he do? Quit and cry that he could never get a girlfriend? Nope. This guy leveraged his disease into being a strip club VIP, cards, messages, visits and posters from porn stars, escorts and other soft prostitutes. He was like larry flynt without the money. He died on the operating table during his one of many annual surgeries and the titty tribute he received was incredible. He beat the average and was not right wing or libertarian at all. He lived on free health care and disability payments.

This may sound cliche, but you are only a loser if you've quit. If you are still fighting you can't be declared a loser as the game isn't over yet.

[mantastic]

There is only one solution:

Breed more female 9s and 10s. More. A lot more.
Use science if needed.

That is the only way to combat this new wave nightmare of elitist bitches on their iphones, and ensures there are enough for everyone who cares.

Then, you might see them actually have to try when they apply for that position as a waitress. And try to keep you interested in them, even if you are boring and plain. Turn the tables on these bitches.

Otherwise, its the same old story... All over again...
Another stuckup slutty bitch, with multiple boyfriends...
You wanna love her, make her moan and cry...
Won't you, make sure there is enough supply?

I'm tired of fucking... Spoiled cunts...
Cheating with everyone, at least once a month...
Working so hard, just to keep her in line...
Won't you, make sure there is enough supply?

[Suits]

(08-05-2016 06:46 PM)mantastic Wrote:  

There is only one solution:

Breed more female 9s and 10s. More. A lot more.
Use science if needed.

That is the only way to combat this new wave nightmare of elitist bitches on their iphones, and ensures there are enough for everyone who cares.

Then, you might see them actually have to try when they apply for that position as a waitress. And try to keep you interested in them, even if you are boring and plain. Turn the tables on these bitches.

[Thrill Jackson]

(08-03-2016 05:44 AM)WalkingMan Wrote:  

^That's what Elon Musk is working on. There's a good chance we'll see it in our lifetime.

That's what I'm talking about,Elon Musk is one cold mothafucka. He seems to be one of those driven individuals that's wants to change the world by any means necessary.Even if that means losing MILLIONS In a divorce TWICE. haha

[RichieP]

(08-05-2016 06:46 PM)mantastic Wrote:  

Breed more female 9s and 10s. More. A lot more.
Use science if needed.

Another stuckup slutty bitch, with multiple boyfriends...
You wanna love her, make her moan and cry...
Won't you, make sure there is enough supply?

I'm tired of fucking... Spoiled cunts...
Cheating with everyone, at least once a month...
Working so hard, just to keep her in line...
Won't you, make sure there is enough supply?

That's fucking hilarious man lol Very creative.

[iknowexactly]

(08-03-2016 10:20 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 07:43 AM)Different T Wrote:  

Quote:

Capitalism doesn't have goals, since it is not a person.

Yes it does, it is a system with the prime value being capital accumulation. You may mean that Capital must act through people, but you might consider the advances being made in AI as an alternative means through which Capital can systematically accumulate greater amounts of capital.

Systems also don't have goals.

People, having goals, may choose to use a certain system.

But "capitalism" is not a sentient being that thinks for itself. That's why I think that quote, along with being infantile and immoral, is nonsensical.

I think you're right about an economic system not having a consciousness per se, I believe the author of that quote meant it in the sense that whether it "intends" to have the "reduction" effect or not, it DOES.

So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it might be an AI simulation of a duck but it can serve as a duck.

Interesting that the quote was offered to me before the advent of facebook, which is blatantly reducing a certain amount of human interaction to cash nexus. Lately they have more and more blunt demands to give more personal information. They "want all users to be real persons" (with saleable information.)

As far as being infantile, immoral and nonsensical, well--I am, but the guy that made that up was a classic defiant Texan.

[RichieP]

Sometimes systems do appear to have primary goals.

E.g.
Corporations: maximize shareholder value
NGOs and countries: survival
Universities: recruit students, obtain funding

Sometimes these goals are top-down and explicit, sometimes they just appear out of the system, are unwritten, and can only be inferred from observing their behavior over time.

In this context it's fair to at least consider "the goal of capitalism", although what that might be is a very difficult question.