Capitalism

[RWStanding]

Capitalism
Ignoring the mythology that has grown up around the term. Capitalism is in essence nothing more than the employment of capital, which is essential for any form of society.
Beyond that essence, it may be regulated so as to perform a social purpose.
If that regulation is at a very minimum the result may well be the creation of vast multinational corporations that control the economy. Effectively they may therefore control the state. Alternatively, the state may take over industry and commerce, with the population serving the state. The result being something akin to China today.
Where regulation, either morally based or more likely by law, is used to skew the economy to benefit society on an egalitarian basis. The result and purpose may be to allow everyone maximum freedom in ownership, at least of their own labour and expertise. With society based on maximum autonomy, and no beneficial concern for others.
Where the economy is skewed so that the population serves the community, altruistically. Industry and commerce therefore must belongs to the community and be managed in a cooperative fashion. Industry serving the population rather than people serving industry.
None of those three alternative directions for the economy to evolve, necessarily includes environmental concern, or concern for natural life. But how this treated is implicit. A centralist state economy treating nature as another resource much as human labour. An egalitarian society with individual autonomy treating the natural world as individual property. While the cooperative and altruist society will treat nature as not only essential in some degree to humanity, but as having or being accorded rights.

[RCSaunders]

Capitalism
Ignoring the mythology that has grown up around the term. Capitalism is in essence nothing more than the employment of capital, which is essential for any form of society.
Beyond that essence, it may be regulated ...

Wonderful idea. Why don't you produce gobs of capital and regulate to show us all how to do it ....

... or did you have in mind regulating the capital others produced.

[Skepdick]

... or did you have in mind regulating the capital others produced.

Capital consists of human-created assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.

What the hell do you create assets/capital from? Thin air?

The stuff you produce assets/capital FROM is the things we regulate. Access to resources.

[Skepdick]

Capitalism
Ignoring the mythology that has grown up around the term. Capitalism is in essence nothing more than the employment of capital, which is essential for any form of society.
Beyond that essence, it may be regulated so as to perform a social purpose.
If that regulation is at a very minimum the result may well be the creation of vast multinational corporations that control the economy. Effectively they may therefore control the state. Alternatively, the state may take over industry and commerce, with the population serving the state. The result being something akin to China today.
Where regulation, either morally based or more likely by law, is used to skew the economy to benefit society on an egalitarian basis. The result and purpose may be to allow everyone maximum freedom in ownership, at least of their own labour and expertise. With society based on maximum autonomy, and no beneficial concern for others.
Where the economy is skewed so that the population serves the community, altruistically. Industry and commerce therefore must belongs to the community and be managed in a cooperative fashion. Industry serving the population rather than people serving industry.
None of those three alternative directions for the economy to evolve, necessarily includes environmental concern, or concern for natural life. But how this treated is implicit. A centralist state economy treating nature as another resource much as human labour. An egalitarian society with individual autonomy treating the natural world as individual property. While the cooperative and altruist society will treat nature as not only essential in some degree to humanity, but as having or being accorded rights.

None of this matters in practice. Power hierarchies always coincide.

If government had power over corporations then people seeking power will take over governments.
If corporations had power over governments then people seeking power will take over corporations.

Whatever the system design and the purpose of an institution - it can be repurposed.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... us/373139/

[RCSaunders]

... or did you have in mind regulating the capital others produced.

Capital consists of human-created assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work.

What the hell do you create assets/capital from? Thin air?

The stuff you produce assets/capital FROM is the things we regulate. Access to resources.

No resources exist in usable form until someone does the work of making them available and usable. Your euphemism for enslaving producers who make resources available, "regulation," doesn't hide your real intention.

You know the resources are of no use to you, because you would have no idea what to do with them. But you are counting on those who do know how to acquire and use them so you can, "regulate," [steal] what they've produced.

"Regulation," is nothing but a fancy term for theft.

[Skepdick]

No resources exist in usable form until someone does the work of making them available and usable.

Really?

Who made your air and sunlight available and usable?
What did humans drink exactly before somebody made water usable?
Who made all the stuff that grows on trees available and usable?

Your euphemism for enslaving producers who make resources available, "regulation," doesn't hide your real intention.

Please point me to a producer who makes resources out of nothing. I really want to meet them.

You know the resources are of no use to you, because you would have no idea what to do with them.

What? Like producers don't know what to do with them?

But you are counting on those who do know how to acquire and use them so you can, "regulate," [steal] what they've produced.

"Regulation," is nothing but a fancy term for theft.

Then who are "producers" regulating (stealing from) in order to obtain the raw materials for the resources they produce?

[RCSaunders]

No resources exist in usable form until someone does the work of making them available and usable.

Really?

Who made your air and sunlight available and usable?
What did humans drink exactly before somebody made water usable?
Who made all the stuff that grows on trees available and usable?

Your euphemism for enslaving producers who make resources available, "regulation," doesn't hide your real intention.

Please point me to a producer who makes resources out of nothing. I really want to meet them.

You know the resources are of no use to you, because you would have no idea what to do with them.

What? Like producers don't know what to do with them?

But you are counting on those who do know how to acquire and use them so you can, "regulate," [steal] what they've produced.

"Regulation," is nothing but a fancy term for theft.

Then who are "producers" regulating (stealing from) in order to obtain the raw materials for the resources they produce?

If you were a producer you would have answers instead of questions.

[simplicity]

Capitalism is the only game in town, but one subject to all the non-sense that that characterizes all human social interaction. Just the same, it has produced a standard of living for billions that would not have been possible otherwise.

A former partner of mine used to say, "The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them."

Work hard, help others, and enjoy life where and when you can...

[Skepdick]

If you were a producer you would have answers instead of questions.

No. That's backwards.

I am a producer. And I don't have answers. That is why I ask the questions.

Good artists borrow - great artists steal. Everything I have ever produced required me stealing inspiration; or resources from nature.

You would've known that if you were a producer instead of a cargo cultist.

[RCSaunders]

Everything I have ever produced required me stealing ...

If you say so.

[Skepdick]

Everything I have ever produced required me stealing ...

If you say so.

At least you have shown your true character. Other than lying by ommission what other despicable traits of yours should we know about?

Everything I have ever produced required me stealing inspiration; or resources from nature.

[RCSaunders]

Everything I have ever produced required me stealing ...

If you say so.

At least you have shown your true character. Other than lying by ommission what other despicable traits of yours should we know about?

Everything I have ever produced required me stealing inspiration; or resources from nature.

I'm a despicable intransigent lover of the truth who refuses to seek or desire anything from anyone they do not choose to their own self-interest. I refuse to interfere in anyone else's life uninvited and desire nothing from or for others but what is benevolent in their own estimation. It always amazes me that others regard that attitude as despicable, but there you are.

Stealing is stealing. Your words, not mine. It's your view of where what you value comes from. I wasn't accusing you of anything, only using your terminology. You apparently believe that any resource you use (inspiration, knowledge, raw materials) is, "stealing," as though you were taking something that actually belonged to someone else or you do not have a legitimate claim to, because otherwise, it would not be stealing.

If that is not what you meant, why did you use the word, "stealing?" What was it you intended one to conclude from your use of that word?

[Skepdick]

I'm a despicable intransigent lover of the truth who refuses to seek or desire anything from anyone they do not choose to their own self-interest. I refuse to interfere in anyone else's life uninvited and desire nothing from or for others but what is benevolent in their own estimation. It always amazes me that others regard that attitude as despicable, but there you are.

Stealing is stealing. Your words, not mine. It's your view of where what you value comes from. I wasn't accusing you of anything, only using your terminology. You apparently believe that any resource you use (inspiration, knowledge, raw materials) is, "stealing," as though you were taking something that actually belonged to someone else or you do not have a legitimate claim to, because otherwise, it would not be stealing.

If that is not what you meant, why did you use the word, "stealing?" What was it you intended one to conclude from your use of that word?

steal verb take without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

What I intended you to conclude by using this word is precisely:

1. Nature did not give me permission to take the resources that I take in order to produce value.
2. I did not have a legal right to take the resources that I took either - for I have not entered into a legal agreement with nature.
3. I have no intention to return the materials for as long as it serves my own self-interest, and the self-interest of other humans.

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.

[RCSaunders]

1. Nature did not give me permission to take the resources that I take in order to produce value.

Doesn't that anthropomorphize nature?

[Skepdick]

Doesn't that anthropomorphize nature?

Which part of NOT giving me permission (like humans do) is the anthropomorphism exactly?