Mises: Commerce and Civilization

[shanek]

This is by far one of the best artices I've read on the Iraq situation, and how it affects those who have to live there:

Haydar Hussain, the third-generation owner of a butcher shop in Baghdad, isn't much interested in politics. He doesn't care whose statue appears in the public square. He didn't like Saddam but doesn't like his replacement either. He has his personal religious views, but will gladly sell to Sunni, Shiite, Christian, or Jew. In fact, his interests are not complicated. He wants to protect his property, to be free to serve others through exchange, and to otherwise be left alone.

In the days before the war, his shop was full: beef, lamb, and chicken in every cut imaginable. He did his best to work around sanctions, despotism, inflation, and a thousand other barriers that conspired against commerce. Somehow he managed, and, like thousands of other heroic merchants in that country, kept the people fed by means of trade.

After the war, he only had a bit of hamburger to sell, but his doors were open, unlike the other 95 percent of businesses that had closed for lack of products and fear of looters (official and unofficial). How did he do it? He provided his own protection and worked extremely hard. All of Iraq suffered, but slightly less so because of his efforts.

It was often said in the days after the war that Iraq had descended into a state of "anarchy," but that's not the best word to describe war between two states. Any merchant in that country will testify that the problem he faces is not lack of government but government itself: first Saddam and then those who displaced Saddam. Both represented a form of official violence and disorder that makes doing business difficult.

To hear U.S. officials talk, the key to restoring livable economic conditions is the military working with regulatory agencies, international governmental bodies like the World Bank, and billions in tax dollars. That’s not true, of course. If Iraq is to be rebuilt into a functioning society again, it will be through the efforts of Haydar Hussain and others like him. In the end, it will be commerce and the merchant class that will provide, and they will have to go it alone, without the help of superpowers.

What motivates them? The prospect of profit, yes, but there is more to it than that. What these people have is a drive to serve, combined with an amazing survival instinct. When others are destroying and looting, they are busy trying to create, protect, and provide, always ready to strike a deal of some sort.

The merchant class has been the most reviled in the history of political thought. Their very existence sticks in the craw of those who, like Marxists and modern-day militarists, believe that history should be about great conflicts, and winners and losers. Why? Because the merchant class views history in a more mundane way: as a series of small steps by which people are provided the goods and services they need to overcome the great economic problem of scarcity.

It is a simple idea, one that is immediately clear to the mind not mired in ideological dreams of a society managed from the top down. The market itself has always been with us as the source of civilization, but it took economists to provide the explanation concerning why. The result was the flowering of economic science that continued through the centuries—the discipline that works out the full implications of the meaning of exchange in a world of scarcity.

The advent of economic science and the liberal social philosophy generally laid the foundation for political events that secured liberty (such as the American Revolution) and the astonishing improvements in human well being that we've seen in the last several centuries.

Is it surprising that economic science was so late in its development? Perhaps not, given all the forces in society so naturally allied against its insights. A free-market economy is incompatible with a state that intervenes to manage people's property or otherwise circumscribe their liberty. It rules out the imposition of central plans, social engineering, wealth redistribution schemes, plunder and looting, and imperial wars. In short, it rules out anything that would disturb peaceful trade among individuals.

Who wants to destroy peace and enterprise? Those who benefit from conflict and war, namely, the state, as well as intellectuals who see the state as the vehicle for the realization of their plans. In our own time, the insights of great liberals of old are considered outmoded by thinkers left and right, as the advocates of collectivism push for more government power and the promoters of unending war herald the glories of destruction as essential and uplifting.

But collectivism and war create nothing; they only smash wealth and leave misery and despotism in their wake. They solve no human problem; they only create more of them. War, in particular, is the very opposite of free enterprise. "Peace and not war is the father of all things," wrote Mises.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1242

[Malachi151]

Oh lord, what a load fo crap. It reads like "The Watchtower". Make a few relavent observations and draw completely irrational conclusions.

You're definately a religious capitalist.

Phrases like "to be free to serve others through exchange", are a dead giveaway to propaganda. Capitalism is not about serving others, its about serving self interests. Trying to make a job community service is quite dishonest, which is not to say that a few poeple don't do their job with that view, but that's not the principle that the free-markets work on.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Make a few relavent observations and draw completely irrational conclusions.Which must be strange to you, since you are used to make irrational conclusions based on irrelevant observations, huh?

[crackmonkey]

:D

[Frank Newgent]

What these people have is a drive to serve, combined with an amazing survival instinct.
If you hope and expect that your regular customer today will still be that a year from now you have to have him leave the place happy. Sometimes that means not making much on the deal. But calling that a drive to serve is crackers.

This might be further obscured with a pointless sports analogy:

http://www.velocityracquetball.net/Quizes/Drive%20Serve%20Multiple%20Choice.htm

3. The wrong mentality of the drive (to) serve:

a) Develop a rhythm by a set routine
b) Elicit a weak return
c) Go for an ace every time
d) There is no wrong mentality
e) None of the above
f) All of the above

[Luke T.]

Shanek, you are familiar with the deprivations suffered by our U.S. merchants and the horrific state or our economy at the conclusion of our war of independence, aren't you? Should they not have gone to the trouble?

This is normal stuff happening, dude.

[Malachi151]

like Marxists and modern-day militarists, believe that history should be about great conflicts, and winners and losers. Why? Because the merchant class views history in a more mundane way: as a series of small steps by which people are provided the goods and services they need to overcome the great economic problem of scarcity.

Marxists are not against the merchant class at all. Capitalsits and merchants are two different things totally. Capitalists are those that control mechanists of socialized production, i.e. factories, individuals who put large numbers of people out of business and then employ them back at lower rates. Its all part of progress for sure, but without some safeguards it puts too much control in the hands of a few people.

Small businessmen like this guy are not "capitalists, and Marx had nothingwhatsoever agianst these types of businessmen, thats who Marx was in favor of trying to protect. Marxism is the recognition of the conflict between workers and small businessmen and capitlaists, i.e. big businessmen, and stands of the side of workers and independant businessmen. Of course Marx recognizes that small businesses eventually produce big businesses and then cause problems.

The "merchant class" doesn't view history at all. Merchants are out to make a buck, period. They aren't it in to build some grand society, they are just trying to put bread on the table and live. The guy is full of crap and probably never ran his own business in his life.

A free-market economy is incompatible with a state that intervenes to manage people's property or otherwise circumscribe their liberty.

A free-market economy is economic anarchy. Sure it works great as a starting point, but quickly rules need to be developed in order to keep things fair and equitable. Its like the difference between back yard football and pro-football. Yeah, you can get buy with no refs in backwayrd football, but then the level of play is increased you need solid rules and refs to make the game work.

The market itself has always been with us as the source of civilization

Civilization is marked by a long history of conflict and war, which is exactly what Marxism intends to put a stop to. All of civilization is built on disparity, conflict, war, and oppression. Name ANY significant civilization that existed without those things. Look at the Egytian pyramids. We call that a great accomplishment, yet obviously they were built through a means of oppression. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Americans, etc all had massive slave popualtions, and all had many conflicts and wars which all contributed to the economy and built civilization. Civilization is built of conflict.

But collectivism and war create nothing; they only smash wealth and leave misery and despotism in their wake. They solve no human problem; they only create more of them. War, in particular, is the very opposite of free enterprise.

This guy is an idiot. Free enterprise is behind almost all war. Neither collectivism nor war create nothing, they both can, and do create wealth. War more so, which is why war is done. If war were not economically beneficial it would never take place. Most wars occure for economic reasons. The guy obviously knows nothing about imperialism or economics .

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Which must be strange to you, since you are used to make irrational conclusions based on irrelevant observations, huh?

:D :D :D

friggin' hilarious

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


This guy is an idiot. Free enterprise is behind almost all war.

Care to explain.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Marxists are not against the merchant class at all.

Of course not. Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

A free-market economy is economic anarchy. Sure it works great as a starting point, but quickly rules need to be developed in order to keep things fair and equitable. Its like the difference between back yard football and pro-football. Yeah, you can get buy with no refs in backwayrd football, but then the level of play is increased you need solid rules and refs to make the game work.

Hence the desire of capitalists for limited government. The football analogy is a good one. Of course a good game of football requires prudent refereeing and rules, lest no football is played at all due to the game being constantly held up for infringements.


Free enterprise is behind almost all war.

Actually the opposite is true. "Red" Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, made a similar claim along the line of capitalism being responsible for millions of deaths. The problem is that the regimes he had in mind, most notably Nazi Germany, had very little attachment to free market capitalism. Corporatism was the economic cornerstone of fascism, not the free market.

[QUOTE]If war were not economically beneficial it would never take place./QUOTE]

Wars in Europe took place mainly because the most agressive and well armed nation in Europe had the habit of giving autocratic powers to mad little men. The nation in Europe that had relied most heavily on trade, Britain, remained detached from European affairs for most of the time in question, preferring "splendid isolation" to permanent conflict on the continent.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Care to explain.

See:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

Free enterprise is behind expansionism, imperialism, etc. Free enterprise is what was behind Columbus' Voyage of Discovery and the enslavement of millions of natives for mining gold and gems, etc. Free-enterprise was behind the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, etc.

Free enterprise was behind the expansion of the Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire, Sumeria, etc.

Its both a productive force and a creator of problems. All these people try to demonize something, Marxism, collectivism, war, free-enterprise, etc. None of these things are purely wrong or bad though, each have pros and cons. There is no magic bullet.


The idea that free-enterprise solves everything is as stupid as the idea that collectivism solves everything.

The idea that free-enterprise and government are separable is ludicrous, or that without government some other power structure would not be formed to take its place. Without government, i.e. public, control of things like transportation and military, and police forces, and business laws, you would just have powerful individuals or corporations in charge in which case no one has any say other then the entity with power.

Government is the means through which people collectively share power to keep one entity or small groups of entities from having it all. Even with government that can still happen, and it does happen and it is happening in America today, but without government you are straight to totalitarianism of the wealthy.

How do you even define what free-enterprise is? There is really no such thing. If there are not rules imposed by a government then businesses themselves devleop their own framework of arrangements based on self interest and their power to get their way, i.e. the leverage of capaital.

Of course not. Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

Meaningless statement.

Hence the desire of capitalists for limited government. The football analogy is a good one. Of course a good game of football requires prudent refereeing and rules, lest no football is played at all due to the game being constantly held up for infringements.

Yes, thats correct. A limited governemtn has nothing to do with that though, but effencient rules for business do. Yes, obviously the rules for business should always be as effecient as possible.

Actually the opposite is true. "Red" Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, made a similar claim along the line of capitalism being responsible for millions of deaths. The problem is that the regimes he had in mind, most notably Nazi Germany, had very little attachment to free market capitalism. Corporatism was the economic cornerstone of fascism, not the free market.

Capitalism was behing the virtual extinction of the natives of the Americas. Capitalism was behind WWI. Capitlaism was behind the conflicts with China, capitalism was behind the Spanish-American War, War of 1812, the wars in Nicoragua, Venezuela, Panama, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, etc.

The issue is that its both a productive force and a destructive force. You just have to see both sides of it and acknowledge that in the process of some people becomign wealthy other are killed.

Wars in Europe took place mainly because the most agressive and well armed nation in Europe had the habit of giving autocratic powers to mad little men. The nation in Europe that had relied most heavily on trade, Britain, remained detached from European affairs for most of the time in question, preferring "splendid isolation" to permanent conflict on the continent.

None of that refutes what I said. Wars are profitable for the victor and/or for some participants. War is a business. There is no way to deny this, the financials prove it out. Some entities make money off war, again, see the link I included. The reality is that "making money" is seldom a benign process, often someone somewhere gets hurt along the way.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
Capitalism was behing the virtual extinction of the natives of the Americas. Capitalism was behind WWI. Capitlaism was behind the conflicts with China, capitalism was behind the Spanish-American War, War of 1812, the wars in Nicoragua, Venezuela, Panama, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, etc.

How is this demonstrable? Any history book I've studied lists multiple factors that lead to WWI, such as colonial rivalry, convoluted diplomacy, ethnic tensions and arms races. I've never once seen capitalism cited.

Its both a productive force and a creator of problems. All these people try to demonize something, Marxism, collectivism, war, free-enterprise, etc. None of these things are purely wrong or bad though, each have pros and cons. There is no magic bullet.

There is a difference. Regimes that were Marxist or collectivist (or at least aspired to be) could only remain in place by means of oppression. When given the choice, people don't choose collectivism. You could never claim there was an equivalence between FDR's America and Stalin's Russia.

The idea that free-enterprise and government are separable is ludicrous, or that without government some other power structure would not be formed to take its place. Without government, i.e. public, control of things like transportation and military, and police forces, and business laws, you would just have powerful individuals or corporations in charge in which case no one has any say other then the entity with power.

Who's made these arguments? The debate is about the role and scope of government, not whether it's existence is desireable.

The issue is that its both a productive force and a destructive force. You just have to see both sides of it and acknowledge that in the process of some people becomign wealthy other are killed.
BS. I fail to see how an increase in someone's wealth has to come at the suffering or death of someone else.

None of that refutes what I said.

Yes it does.

Wars are profitable for the victor and/or for some participants.

Nonsense. WWI was decidedly unprofitable for Britain. It lost it's overseas markets, and because of the high cost of the war turned from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. In the 1930's Mussolini led Italy on some victorious military campaigns against some fairly soft opponents, and wrecked the Italian economy iin the process.

The reality is that "making money" is seldom a benign process, often someone somewhere gets hurt along the way.

Care to tell me who got hurt in Ireland? (www.eadi.org/gc2002/McCarthy.pdf)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

If you hope and expect that your regular customer today will still be that a year from now you have to have him leave the place happy. Sometimes that means not making much on the deal. But calling that a drive to serve is crackers.

This might be further obscured with a pointless sports analogy:

http://www.velocityracquetball.net/Quizes/Drive%20Serve%20Multiple%20Choice.htm



Having played racquetball for about 17 of the last 24 years, I would say C.

[Malachi151]

I don't have much time so I have to stick to quick anwsers here:

How is this demonstrable? Any history book I've studied lists multiple factors that lead to WWI, such as colonial rivalry, convoluted diplomacy, ethnic tensions and arms races. I've never once seen capitalism cited.

Yeah right, like they are going to site that. Textbooks are nest to useless for learning anything significant, thats just stupid drivel for the masses.

There is a difference. Regimes that were Marxist or collectivist (or at least aspired to be) could only remain in place by means of oppression. When given the choice, people don't choose collectivism. You could never claim there was an equivalence between FDR's America and Stalin's Russia.

There are elements of collectivism even in America. PURE collectivism, yes, thats problematic, but used when appropriate its works well and has been widely usede by a variety of cultures throughout history. It is more productive, its just counter to human instinct many times, people are just too stupid to see the big picture.

BS. I fail to see how an increase in someone's wealth has to come at the suffering or death of someone else.

It does not HAVE to, but it often HAS. Hell, look at Iraq! Thousands of people killed, and some American companies are going to make millions or even billions from the situation. Americans arms makers have made bilions over the past 20 years and been the leading arms dealers in the world most of that time, even selling to Saddam.

Look at the Spanish Empire. They made trillions of dollars and killed millions of people in the process. The money they made was directly realted to the deaths of people.

The early Americna economy was dependant on slavery and killing of natives, thousands of slaves died in the process, making money for the whites in a "free-market" slave trade system.

Again:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

“In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.”

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. "

- General Smedley Butler.

Nonsense. WWI was decidedly unprofitable for Britain.

WWI and WWII were decidedly profitable for America, America was the winner both times. Its typically only profitable its its offensive and you win. No, defensive war isn't going to be profitable, nor a failed offensive war.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Oh lord, what a load fo crap. It reads like "The Watchtower". Make a few relavent observations and draw completely irrational conclusions.

You're definately a religious capitalist.

Phrases like "to be free to serve others through exchange", are a dead giveaway to propaganda. Capitalism is not about serving others, its about serving self interests. Trying to make a job community service is quite dishonest, which is not to say that a few poeple don't do their job with that view, but that's not the principle that the free-markets work on.

Wonderful.

Now, would you actually care to do something useful, like, oh, I don't know...respond to the actual data, rationale, and arguments, instead of just hurling insults and hyberbolae?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Shanek, you are familiar with the deprivations suffered by our U.S. merchants and the horrific state or our economy at the conclusion of our war of independence, aren't you? Should they not have gone to the trouble?

This is normal stuff happening, dude.

I don't think anyone said that this was anything new.

BTW, the biggest reason for the bad economy after the Revolutionary War was because the government funded it with a fiat currency, much like we have today. This led to an economic panic in 1780. How did they fix it? They left the economy alone! Even the strong central Federalist Alexander Bidlack—er, I mean, Hamilton—understood that the merchants could increase the wealth of society on their own. He wanted the government to control the money supply (in fact, one of the big reasons they got into that mess in the first place was that Hamilton issued the bonds with no commodity backing them up), but not the individual businessmen.

[Skeptic]

Marxists are not against the merchant class at all.

Of course not; their merchant parents are paying their college tuition, after all. Besides, SOMEBODY needs to give them a job once they graduate, at least while they're waiting for the revolution...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Of course not. Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.

Heh heh. So true. You just reminded me of the Oingo Boingo song "Capitalism":

There's nothing wrong with making some profit
If you ask me, I will say it's just fine
There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice
I'm so tired of hearing you whine
About the revolution, of bringing down the rich
When was the last time you dug a ditch?

You're just a middle class socialist brat
From a suburban family, and you never really had to work
And now you tell me that you've got to get back
To the struggling masses, whoever they are
You talk, talk, talk about the suffering and pain
Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
What the hell would you know about suffering and pain?

I think that song could have been written for Malachi...

Hence the desire of capitalists for limited government. The football analogy is a good one. Of course a good game of football requires prudent refereeing and rules, lest no football is played at all due to the game being constantly held up for infringements.

And notice that the rules are voluntarily agreed upon by both teams, who both realize they're better of with the rules than without them. Nothing has to be forced on them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Free enterprise is behind expansionism, imperialism, etc. Free enterprise is what was behind Columbus' Voyage of Discovery and the enslavement of millions of natives for mining gold and gems, etc. Free-enterprise was behind the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Spanish-American War, etc.

I just know you can support this.

The free market is what largely freed the slaves, not what enslaved them to begin with. The free market made them obsolete. This happened in almost every industrialized nation, and was in the process of happening in America at the time of the Civil War.

The War of 1812 was an extension of the Revolutionary war. The Spanish-American War started with the sinking of the Maine, nothing at all to do with Free Enterprise. Those wars were all because of governments.

If the rest of your history is this faulty, it's no wonder you have such a screwed up notion of what free enterprise is.

Free enterprise was behind the expansion of the Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire, Sumeria, etc.

Again, support this.

The idea that free-enterprise solves everything is as stupid as the idea that collectivism solves everything.

Agreed. Now all you have to do is show where anyone said that free enterprise solves everything.

Capitalism was behing the virtual extinction of the natives of the Americas. Capitalism was behind WWI. Capitlaism was behind the conflicts with China, capitalism was behind the Spanish-American War, War of 1812, the wars in Nicoragua, Venezuela, Panama, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, etc.

Support, please.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
How is this demonstrable? Any history book I've studied lists multiple factors that lead to WWI, such as colonial rivalry, convoluted diplomacy, ethnic tensions and arms races. I've never once seen capitalism cited.

Actually, the main trigger for all of this was the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand by ethnic Serbs in Austria, and Austria decided to go to war with Serbia as a result. The political ties and treaties of countries allied with Austria and Serbia brought them all in against each other, and poof! Instant world war.

What that has to do with capitalism completely escapes me.

BS. I fail to see how an increase in someone's wealth has to come at the suffering or death of someone else.

It doesn't. Malachi, like all Marxists/socialists/whatever, think of wealth as a limited pool, and anyone who takes from the pool leaves less for everyone else. But it doesn't work that way. The potential for wealth is unlimited; and the creation of wealth in the economy invariably leads to the creation of more wealth.

Nonsense. WWI was decidedly unprofitable for Britain. It lost it's overseas markets, and because of the high cost of the war turned from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. In the 1930's Mussolini led Italy on some victorious military campaigns against some fairly soft opponents, and wrecked the Italian economy iin the process.

Actually, history has shown that war is very, very bad for an economy, even if you're the victor. Whenever there appears to be an exception to this, there's always another reason. For example, it wasn't World War II per se that brought us out of the Great Depression; it was that the Government demand for money to make the war machines pressured the Federal Reserve into releasing its stranglehold on the money supply, which is what created the Depression and kept it going in the first place.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I don't have much time so I have to stick to quick anwsers here:

Quick insults, more like.

Yeah right, like they are going to site that. Textbooks are nest to useless for learning anything significant, thats just stupid drivel for the masses.

Hoo boy... :rolleyes:

It is more productive, its just counter to human instinct many times, people are just too stupid to see the big picture.

Well, then I guess we're just so fortunate to have the collectivists all ready and willing to save us from ourselves and to take our money and spend it the way they think it should be spent, and to tell us how to live our lives.

It does not HAVE to, but it often HAS.

No, it hasn't. Creation of wealth does not come at the expense of others. Ever.

Hell, look at Iraq! Thousands of people killed, and some American companies are going to make millions or even billions from the situation. Americans arms makers have made bilions over the past 20 years and been the leading arms dealers in the world most of that time, even selling to Saddam.

That was hardly an instance of welath creation. Much wealth was destroyed. Try again.

Look at the Spanish Empire. They made trillions of dollars and killed millions of people in the process. The money they made was directly realted to the deaths of people.

Again, that's not creating wealth. That's killing and plundering, not part of free enterprise at all.

Do you not even realize that these are all instances of government interference?

The early Americna economy was dependant on slavery and killing of natives, thousands of slaves died in the process, making money for the whites in a "free-market" slave trade system.

No, the free market system was making slavery obsolete. Go learn history.

Wealth is never created by force. Wealth is created by work. When you mow your lawn, you're creating wealth. When you bludgeon someone and take their wallet, you aren't.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


I don't think anyone said that this was anything new.

BTW, the biggest reason for the bad economy after the Revolutionary War was because the government funded it with a fiat currency, much like we have today. This led to an economic panic in 1780. How did they fix it? They left the economy alone! Even the strong central Federalist Alexander Bidlack—er, I mean, Hamilton—understood that the merchants could increase the wealth of society on their own. He wanted the government to control the money supply (in fact, one of the big reasons they got into that mess in the first place was that Hamilton issued the bonds with no commodity backing them up), but not the individual businessmen.

There was no real US currency until really the Federal Reserve. Especially in the 1700s and early 1800s though they mostly used Spanish currenty and tobacco for money. Currency was a huge problem in America UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT opted to create the Federal Reserve, which is a private bank acutally. The "currency" of the 1700s was nothing at all like our currency today.

[Malachi151]

Cohen: No 'Superpower Fatigue' Secretary Says U.S. Military Presence Promotes Stability

By Stephen Trimble Military.com Staff Writer

WASHINGTON (May 24, 2000) -- Defense Secretary William Cohen, rebutting recent critiques of U.S. foreign policy, vowed to preserve the military's strong presence overseas.

Addressing a U.S. Chamber of Commerce crowd here, Cohen said other countries are starting to ask whether U.S. leaders are showing signs of "superpower fatigue." That is, some critics claim that 50 years of bearing worldwide leadership have begun to weaken the government's resolve abroad.

For example, some lawmakers threatened to order U.S. troops to withdraw from peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo by next July, defying Cohen's claims that troops may be needed there for years longer.

But Cohen reminded the audience that 100,000 U.S. troops remain stationed in Europe and an equal number stands guard in Asia, including nearly 40,000 soldiers in South Korea. Another roughly 25,000 troops stand watch in the Persian Gulf region, he said.

"Does this sound like a nation suffering from superpower fatigue?" he asked. "We cannot rest on our laurels and, indeed, our lasers."

Cohen also cited an economic reason for maintaining America's superpower role.

"Business follows the flag," he said. "Where there is stability and security, there is likely to be investment."

[Jude]

It is more productive, its just counter to human instinct many times, people are just too stupid to see the big picture.

*tries to fit the square peg in the triangle hole*

It seems to me that an economic system built around human instinct will be more successful than one counter to it.

[muckraker]

from malchi151Free enterprise is behind expansionism, imperialism, etc. Free enterprise is what was behind Columbus' Voyage of Discovery and the enslavement of millions of natives for mining gold and gems, etc.

If you look at the economic policies of Europe during the colonial era, you will see that they bear little resemblance to what we would call "free-market capitalism" today.

European colonial economic policies were more geared toward establishing government-approved monopolies (like the Dutch East India Company) and strictly regulating free trade (like forbidding Indians in India from making their own salt, and forbidding the American colonies from trading directly with continental Europe).

[Segnosaur]

Ok, does anybody here find it strange (or perhaps a little humourous) that 2 of the most vocal opponents over the Iraqi invasion are fighting each other over the Iraqi war, in a debate as earth-shattering as the famous "tastes great/less filling" debates?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151

WWI and WWII were decidedly profitable for America, America was the winner both times. Its typically only profitable its its offensive and you win. No, defensive war isn't going to be profitable, nor a failed offensive war.

Since "free markets," according to you cause war, and since Shane showed how it was bad for the Brits and everyone else. It must have been then that World War I was caused by the US. Do you have proof that the US was behind Gavrillo Princip and his assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

Or is this not a reason for the war...Is Shane as well as myself part of the deluded masses that have false conscioussness?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Since "free markets," according to you cause war, and since Shane showed how it was bad for the Brits and everyone else. It must have been then that World War I was caused by the US. Do you have proof that the US was behind Gavrillo Princip and his assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand?

Or is this not a reason for the war...Is Shane as well as myself part of the deluded masses that have false conscioussness?

No, without US intervention WWI and WWII could have been profitable for whoever won. Had Germany and Japan won those wars they likely would have profited.

Its not a guarentee, just like starting a business is not a guarentee of being profitable, however wars are started for economics reasons and becuase the war is deemed from the start to be able to be profitable. People don't start wars that they think will put them ina worse position than before the war, you start a war on the assumption that after the war you will be better off, that you will have gained something.

Had Japan gained control of South East Asia and the Indies you bet that would be profitable, just as us ganing control of everything outside the origional 13 colonies has been profitable. We had to wage war on the Natives to do that. The drive to do it was economic, pushed on my people looking for more profits.

Wars are ways of aquiring new resources and stimulating economies. This is basic history here. Just look at any empire you want.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
There was no real US currency until really the Federal Reserve. Currency was a huge problem in America UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT opted to create the Federal Reserve

That's just not true. During the Revolutionary War, the paper currency was issued by the states, not by the Federal Government. However, there was such a thing as the bonds that I mentioned. That allowed the Congress to run a debt to finance the Revolutionary War (with drastic consequences to the economy).

Ever heard the phrase, "Not worth a Continental"? That's in reference to the fact that Continental bonds fell to 1/1000th of their initial value after the Revolutionary War.

US coinage has existed since the formation of the Constitution. Later on, banks started issuing currency on their own in the form of promissory notes. These notes said that you were the owner of a certain amount of gold. They were transferrable, so if you wanted to buy something you didn't have to cash in your note and give the merchant the gold; you just gave him the promissory note. The banks also recognized each others' notes, and would hold the reserves of gold in exchange for them.

In 1861, the government, needing the finances to pay for the Civil War, permitted the Department of the Treasury to issue and circulate money. This money was in the form of demand notes. Here's an 1861 $5 note:

http://www.rich.frb.org/econed/museum/images/fivedollardemand1.jpg http://www.rich.frb.org/econed/museum/images/fivedollardemand2.jpg

The Federal Reserve was created, not to create a national currency, which already existed, but to create a central banking authority run by the government. The Federal Reserve has the authority to set interest rates for the district banks, and control the money supply by the issuing of Federal Reserve notes (which is what our current paper money is) and by setting a mandatory reserve rate (i.e., saying that the banks must keep, say, at least 10% of deposits in reserve, meaning they can lend out no more than 90% of the value of their deposits). This control of the money supply led to the Great Depression, the biggest banking crisis in American history, and the biggest run of sustained inflation (which is still going on).

which is a private bank acutally.

No, it isn't. It's run by the Board of Governors which has just as many representatives from the US Government as it does from the district banks. They have to claim it's private on paper because it's unconstitutional for the government to run a central bank, but run it they do.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
[bits of an article without comment]

How interesting...So, the status of a suprtpower is determined solely by how many troops they send aroind worldwide, how many countries they decide to intrude into? Give me a break...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
No, without US intervention WWI and WWII could have been profitable for whoever won.

Total BS. WWI was basically over by the time the US stepped in. Both sides were weary and receptive to a quick end. The entry of the US made the end of WWI more decisive than it was, and laid the seeds for WWII. If the US hadn't intervened, the allied forces wouldn't have been able to impose the Treaty of Versailles (drafted with the eager help of President Wilson) on Germany, causing the ruination of their economy and the sentiments that allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place. Without US intervention in WWI, there would have been no WWII, and in any event there's no way it would have been profitable for anybody. War destroys wealth, it does not create it.

It's also amazing to me that you blame the free market for this but state flat out that wars are waged by governments for their own advantage.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Malachi151


No, without US intervention WWI and WWII could have been profitable for whoever won. Had Germany and Japan won those wars they likely would have profited.

Its not a guarentee, just like starting a business is not a guarentee of being profitable, however wars are started for economics reasons and becuase the war is deemed from the start to be able to be profitable. People don't start wars that they think will put them ina worse position than before the war, you start a war on the assumption that after the war you will be better off, that you will have gained something.

Had Japan gained control of South East Asia and the Indies you bet that would be profitable, just as us ganing control of everything outside the origional 13 colonies has been profitable. We had to wage war on the Natives to do that. The drive to do it was economic, pushed on my people looking for more profits.

Wars are ways of aquiring new resources and stimulating economies. This is basic history here. Just look at any empire you want.

This is not evidence. It is Marxist speculation on your part. You have failed to show evidence about the free market causing World War I.
In particular a link between the assassination of Franz Ferdiand and any scheme for someone to make money...

[shanek]

By the way, in continuation of my support for my above post, here is a 1776 Continental dollar:

http://www.coinfacts.com/colonials/continental_dollars/continental_dollar_obverse_3D_pcgs65.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/colonials/continental_dollars/continental_dollar_reverse_3D_pcgs65.jpg

The issuance of these was a huge act of rebellion by the colonies, since the Crown had expressly forbade them from minting their own money. In a show of solidarity, each colony agreed to adopt and mint this coin, designed by Benjamin Franklin (note his motto: "Mind Your Business"), and were struck out of pewter, brass, and silver.

In 1792, Congress passed the Coinage Act, and the first official US Currency was minted in 1793. Here is a 1795 US Dollar:

http://www.coinfacts.com/silver_dollars/flowing_hair_dollars/1795_silver_dollars/1795_silver_dollar_b07_obv.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/silver_dollars/flowing_hair_dollars/1795_silver_dollars/1795_silver_dollar_b07_rev.jpg

A 1794 half dollar:

http://www.coinfacts.com/HalfDollars/flowing_hair_half_dollars/1794_half_dollars/1794_half_dollar_O104_obverse.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/HalfDollars/flowing_hair_half_dollars/1794_half_dollars/1794_half_dollar_O104_reverse.jpg

A 1796 quarter:

http://www.coinfacts.com/quarter_dollars/draped_bust_quarters/1796_quarter_dollars/1796_quarter_dollar_b1_obv.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/quarter_dollars/draped_bust_quarters/1796_quarter_dollars/1796_quarter_dollar_b1_rev.jpg

(continued next post because of image limitations)

[shanek]

A 1796 dime:

http://www.coinfacts.com/dimes/draped_bust_dimes/1796_dimes/1796_dime_jr4_obv.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/dimes/draped_bust_dimes/1796_dimes/1796_dime_jr4_rev.jpg

A 1794 half dime (they weren't called nickels until 1866, when they started minting them out of nickel):

http://www.coinfacts.com/HalfDimes/flowing_hair_half_dimes/1794_half_dimes/1794_Half_Dime_Obv.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/HalfDimes/flowing_hair_half_dimes/1794_half_dimes/1794_Half_Dime_Rev.jpg

And a 1793 cent piece:

http://www.coinfacts.com/LargeCents/1793_chain_cents/1793_large_cent_s03_obv.jpg http://www.coinfacts.com/LargeCents/1793_chain_cents/1793_large_cent_s03_rev.jpg

They even had a half cent piece:

http://www.coinfacts.com/half_cents/liberty_cap_half_cents_head_left/1793_half_cents/1793_half_cent_c2_obv.gif http://www.coinfacts.com/half_cents/liberty_cap_half_cents_head_left/1793_half_cents/1793_half_cent_c2_rev.gif

The notion that there never was an official US currency until the Federal Reserve was formed in 1913 is patently ludicrous.

[Malachi151]

I guess I'll have to get more detailed on Americna currency.

Yes there has alwasy been "Americna currency", but it was never widely adopted until around the Civil War. Banks were few and far between, and with no regulations they almost always overprinted money leading to inflation and the money being worthless.

Here, read this:

http://www.sjprep.org/tclifford/USweb/Money/MONEY.html

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch5_p6.htm

From its inception, the second Bank was unpopular in the newer states and territories, and with less prosperous people everywhere. Opponents claimed the bank possessed a virtual monopoly over the country's credit and currency, and reiterated that it represented the interests of the wealthy few. On the whole, the bank was well managed and rendered valuable service; but Jackson, elected as a popular champion against it, vetoed a bill to recharter the bank. In his message to Congress, he denounced monopoly and special privilige, saying that "our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress". The effort to override the veto failed.

http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/northamerica.html

The American Revolution and the War of 1812
When he was in London in 1766 Benjamin Franklin tried in vain to convince Parliament of the need for a general issue of colonial paper money, but to no avail. The constitutional struggle between Britain and the colonies over the right to issue paper money was a significant factor in provoking the American Revolution.

When the war broke out the monetary brakes were released completely and the revolution was financed overwhelmingly with an expansionary flood of paper money and so the American Congress financed its first war with hyperinflation. By the end of the war the Continentals had fallen to one-thousandth of their nominal value. Yet although the phrase not worth a Continental has subsequently symbolized utter worthlessness, in the perspective of economic history such notes should be counted as invaluable as being the only major practical means then available for financing the successful revolution.

During the Revolution the Bank of Pennsylvania was established (with the support of Thomas Paine) in June 1780 but it was little more than a temporary means of raising funds to pay for the desperate needs of a practically starving army. The Bank of North America was a more permanent institution, granted a charter by Congress (by a narrow margin of votes) in 1781 and beginning its operations in Pennsylvania on 1 January 1782. It was followed after the war by the Bank of New York and the Bank of Massachusetts, which both opened in 1784, and the Bank of Maryland in 1790.

The financial chaos of the aftermath of the revolution and outbreaks of violent conflict between debtors and creditors led to the establishment of the dollar as the new national currency replacing those of individual states. However, owing to shortages of gold and silver bullion and the rapid disappearance of coins from circulation legal tender was restored to Spanish dollars in 1797 and it was not until 1857 that the federal government felt able to repeal all former acts authorizing the currency of foreign gold or silver coins, but by then coins were merely the small change of commerce.

After the revolution one might have expected the newly independent Americans to have welcomed with enthusiasm their freedom to set up banks but in fact there was a great deal of opposition to banking in general. The first true American bank, the Bank of North America had its congressional charter repealed in 1785. The first national bank, the Bank of the United States, though a financial success, was forced to close when its charter was not renewed. As a result, when the 1812 War broke out there was no government bank to exert a restraining hand on the commercial banks which issued far too many notes backed by far too little specie and the American financial scene reverted to its familiar inflationary pattern.

After the 1812 War the Second Bank of the United States was set up but once one of the heroes of that war, General Jackson, became president it was doomed to failure. Jackson admitted to Nicholas Biddle, the last president of the Bank, "ever since I read the history of the South Sea Bubble I have been afraid of banks." By killing the Second Bank Jackson delayed the establishment of a sensibly regulated banking system for eighty years. During this period the Treasury was left to carry out the increasingly difficult task of being its own banker. There was a divergence between the more settled areas of the country, such as New England where opinion veered towards sounder money, and the frontier states which tended to welcome easy credit but following the Californian gold discoveries in 1848 even the sound-money men became expansionist.

And that's all just the tip of the iceberg.

[Skeptic]

*tries to fit the square peg in the triangle hole*

It seems to me that an economic system built around human instinct will be more successful than one counter to it.

That's why there is no Marxist country without reeducation camps and gulags: the masses must be made to understand their human instincts are terribly wrong SOMEHOW.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Here, read this:

http://www.sjprep.org/tclifford/USweb/Money/MONEY.html

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch5_p6.htm

http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/northamerica.html

And that's all just the tip of the iceberg.

Funny...All those are saying exactly what I did! :rolleyes:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by shanek:
Heh heh. So true. You just reminded me of the Oingo Boingo song "Capitalism":

There's nothing wrong with making some profit
If you ask me, I will say it's just fine
There's nothing wrong with wanting to live nice
I'm so tired of hearing you whine
About the revolution, of bringing down the rich
When was the last time you dug a ditch?

You're just a middle class socialist brat
From a suburban family, and you never really had to work
And now you tell me that you've got to get back
To the struggling masses, whoever they are
You talk, talk, talk about the suffering and pain
Your mouth is bigger than your entire brain
What the hell would you know about suffering and pain?

I think that song could have been written for Malachi...

I agree. What Malachi and his ilk don't realise is that while him and his ilk are moaning on about the phantom casualties of capitalism, the actual workers are earning time and a half doing overtime, while keeping one eye on their share options. Not that they're ever likely to find this out, since "socialist workers" and marxists wouldn't lower themselves to do manual work or trades. ;)

OTOH this capitalist spent his summers grinding and buffing sheet metal, or mixing cement.

Actually, the main trigger for all of this was the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand by ethnic Serbs in Austria, and Austria decided to go to war with Serbia as a result. The political ties and treaties of countries allied with Austria and Serbia brought them all in against each other, and poof! Instant world war.

What that has to do with capitalism completely escapes me.

The causes of WWI were represented very well by a contemporary illustration that made it's way into my high school history text book. The diagram should scrolls piled high, labelled with "secret diplomacy", "naval race", "colonial rivalry" etc. To this was added a lighted match labelled "Assasination in Sarajevo". The Austrians were aching for a chance to crush the Serbs for years, and used the assasination as the excuse. And as you said, poof!

WWI was basically over by the time the US stepped in. Both sides were weary and receptive to a quick end. The entry of the US made the end of WWI more decisive than it was, and laid the seeds for WWII. If the US hadn't intervened, the allied forces wouldn't have been able to impose the Treaty of Versailles (drafted with the eager help of President Wilson) on Germany, causing the ruination of their economy and the sentiments that allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place. Without US intervention in WWI, there would have been no WWII, and in any event there's no way it would have been profitable for anybody. War destroys wealth, it does not create it.

Don't forget that the Royal Navy had Germany blockaded, and that food shortages were having as big an effect as any allied military action. IIRC reinstatement of the blockade was used as a bargaining tool at the peace negotiations. It's hard to see how the US could have stayed out of the conflict, considering that Germany had started unrestricted u-boat warfare against neutral shipping, and was found to be actively encouraging Mexico to invade the US on the side of the axis. However the bottom line as far as this thread goes is that all the European combatants suffered economically, regardless of which side they were on.

[Malachi151]

OTOH this capitalist spent his summers grinding and buffing sheet metal, or mixing cement.

"Capitalists" don't do work, by definition. A capitalist is someoen who controls capital. They don't work, they invest and they employ. Someone who is mixing cement is not a capitalist, they are a laborer.

And anyway, I play by the rules of the game. I have my own business on the side, I am employed as a software developer, and I just sold my house after living it in for 1 year 4 months and renovating it myself for a $10,000 profit in pocket after all expenses, and I'm going to buy another house and do the same, and I'm currently looking into buying a small software development company.

So, while you're busy moaning about me I'm busy making money as both a capitalist and a "worker".

I understand quite well how the game is played, and I'm playing it myself because there are no other options for success in America, you have to play by the rules or not play at all. I simply recognize that the rules need to be changed.

[Skeptic]

I understand quite well how the game is played, and I'm playing it myself because there are no other options for success in America.

So why don't you leave to a Marxist country, such as Cuba or North Korea? Surely, one can succeed there without playing the evil capitalistic game. Enjoying the fruits of success in a capitalistic system while whining how horrible it is sounds awfully hypocritical to me.

Besides, why would you WANT to succeed in a capitalistic game in the first place? Doesn't that make you an evil tool of the system? Wouldn't you be happier as a laborer? At least that way you are not opressing the workers, like you must do if you employ anybody according to the rules of the current, evil system...

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Malachi151
"Capitalists" don't do work, by definition. A capitalist is someoen who controls capital. They don't work, they invest and they employ. Someone who is mixing cement is not a capitalist, they are a laborer. Fascinating, Malachi, let us see if we can support your contention here…

Let us check, uh, I dunno dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Capitalist):Capitalist
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth. Let us check Merriam-Webster online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary):
Capitalist
1 : a person who has capital especially invested in business; broadly : a person of wealth : PLUTOCRAT
2 : a person who favors capitalism Interesting, okay, how about your dictionary.com (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/c/c0086200.html):
Capitalist
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
Notice, Malachi, that to fit one of the definitions of “Capitalist” the only attribute one must exhibit is to support capitalism. Please sir, do not attempt to educate the folks on this forum.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by no one in particular

Notice, Malachi, that to fit one of the definitions of “Capitalist” the only attribute one must exhibit is to support capitalism. Please sir, do not attempt to educate the folks on this forum.

We should keep a running list of terms that Malachi has re-defined to support his viewpoints. Perhaps we can start our own dictionary.

- Socialism
- "self-made millionaire"
- Capatalist

Anyone got anymore?

[Malachi151]

Obviously, as you should see from your own post, the word has more than one meaning.

When a Marxist says "capitalist" they are talking about:

2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

Just being a supporter of an idea is nothing. In terms fo the role that they are playing in the system someone who does WORK is a laboerer, the person who finances that work is a capitalist.

A guy that draws welfare his whole life can be a supporter of capitlaism.

The word has more than one meaning, and in terms of defining an individual's relationship in an economy #2 is the meaning that is used.

At this point you guys are revealing that you don't even know how to use a dictionary, that's pretty sad.

torch ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tôrch)
n.

1) A portable light produced by the flame of a stick of resinous wood or of a flammable material wound about the end of a stick of wood; a flambeau.
Chiefly British. A flashlight.
2) Something that serves to illuminate, enlighten, or guide.
3) Slang. An arsonist.
4) A portable apparatus that produces a very hot flame by the combustion of gases, used in welding and construction

See how this works. The word has a totally different meaning in different context. Go back to elementary school :p

[Cain]

Silliness.

We can play "dictionary says" forever and it won't solve anything. The terms "capitalism" and "socialism" have been so grossly misused over the years to the extent that they mean practically nothing at all. If you want to say a "capitalist" is merely a "supporter of capitalism," fine. After all, the Soviet Union called itself a "democracy" and "socialist."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines capitalism thusly: One who has accumulated capital; one who has capital available for employment in financial or industrial enterprises. And gives various examples from the late 18th century. Practically all of the socialist literature up until present times has taken capitalist to mean the moneyed or propertied class -- the owner of the means of production.

Malachi, as difficult as it might be for some of you to recognize, is essentially correct: capital is contrasted with labor, and the current system is called capitalism because labor power is subordinate to capital power.

This is why Marxists and others have always claimed that a defining feature of capitalism is wage-labor (a form of exploitation). If the majority, or even a significant number of people, own and control the means of production, then we no longer have capitalism.

Here's the Oxford Dictionary of Philosohph (edited by Simon Blackburn): Mode of socioeconomic organization in which a class of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial institutions provide the capital with which businesses produce goods and services and employ workers. In return the capitalist extracts profits from the goods created. Capitalism is frequently seen as the embodiment of the market economy, and hence may result in the optimum distribution of scarce resources, with a resulting improvement for all; this optimism is countered by pointing to the opportunity for exploitation inherent in the system.

(He has an entry on exploitation as well).

[Tormac]

I'm trying to follow this thread, but I'm lost.

I hope that the main authors can help me out by answering a few questions of mine.

(I'll try not to induce accidental topic drift)

1). What is the difference between Mercantilism and Capitalism?

I really think that these two economic philosophies and or systems are getting lumped in together as one by some in this thread.


2). What is the definition of a capitalist.

I apparently do not understand the definition of it, at least the one that seems to be used in this thread. I own shares of Cisco, AMD, Owens Corning, Chevron-Texaco, and through mutual funds hundreds of other corporations. Does that make me a capitalist? I have a friend that owns a laundry mat. Does that make him a capitalist?

Thanks for any explanation, I fear that definitions to some of the key terms being used in this thread are not the orthodox ones I am familiar with, or maybe I need a dictionary. :)

[Tormac]

Ahh I can see I was not alone in needing a better definition of some topics.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tormac
I'm trying to follow this thread, but I'm lost.

I hope that the main authors can help me out by answering a few questions of mine.

(I'll try not to induce accidental topic drift)

1). What is the difference between Mercantilism and Capitalism?

I really think that these two economic philosophies and or systems are getting lumped in together as one by some in this thread.


2). What is the definition of a capitalist.

I apparently do not understand the definition of it, at least the one that seems to be used in this thread. I own shares of Cisco, AMD, Owens Corning, Chevron-Texaco, and through mutual funds hundreds of other corporations. Does that make me a capitalist? I have a friend that owns a laundry mat. Does that make him a capitalist?

Thanks for any explanation, I fear that definitions to some of the key terms being used in this thread are not the orthodox ones I am familiar with, or maybe I need a dictionary. :)

For the most part as "capitlaist" is one who's PRIMARY income is derived from capital investments, or controling "the means of production", so no you would not be a capitalist.

In its purest for the capitalist never produces anything. The wage-laborer is who does the production.

Cain is correct, IF the economy were such that the majority of people OWNED their own means of produciton, i.e. they were self employed, then it would not be a "capitalist" economy. It is a "capitalist" economy when a minority of people own the "means of production" and the majority of people are employed through wage-labor, i.e. paid salaries using the property of the capitalism to produce goods and services.

So, if you own your own means of production then you are neither a capitlaist or a wage-laborer.

Your friend who owns the laundry mat is probably not considered a capitalist because he owns his own means of producing goods and services. Does he employ other workers and does he work himself?

Marxism though is not really much conserned with small business owners, Marxism is talking primarily about factories and mining operations, and things of that nature. Marxism is talking about companies or individuals who employ thousands of people, all of whom have little or no control over their own jobs. The "goal" of Marxism is to work towards everyone having more control over their own jobs instead fo being up to the will of a few powerful "capitalists", teh idea is that prior to the Industrial Revolution individuals had more control over tehi own lives because they owned their own means of production. A shoe maker had a shop and made his own shoes. He own all the tools and supplied needed to make shoes. Now a show maker works in a factory and does not own anything an generally has less control over his own work that before.

Before someone could make shoes all they wanted to and supply and demand was all they had to deal with. They never had to worry about being fired because they owned their own business. Now more people don't own anything that can make money they have to "sell themselves", "sell their labor power" to the capitalist, who hires and fires based on his needs, not that of the employee, which takes control away from the laborer.

Marxism is all just about preventing all of the power from being in the hands of a few people.

[no one in particular]

Malachi, you continue to use your selected definition to define what a capitalist is or is not. It is very, very simple. If you support capitalism you meet one of the requirements needed to be considered a capitalist. That is all. Yes, there are other requirements as well but in order to meet the minimum definition all one has to do to be a capitalist is support the idea of capitalism. If, after this post, you continue to leave this requirement out of your definition of capitalist then you will meet one of the minimum requirements needed to be considered:stupid (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stupid)

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.

[Tormac]

Hmm I think by Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com my investmenst make me a capitalist (although I've definatly lost more money than made lately <sigh>)

Of course I also have my job were my labor adds value to something that I did not personaly produce, so I am also labor.

Is it because I do not own a controling share of Cisco that I am not a capatalist?

Marx himself may not have been concerned with the small businessman, but I think that Stalin and Mao and any modern government is.

Malachi151 wrote
Marxism is all just about preventing all of the power from being in the hands of a few people.

I agree with you about Marx's goals. Unfortunatly I think others on this thread would define marxism (or at least comunism) by the goals (and brutal actions) of Stalin and Mao.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by no one in particular
Malachi, you continue to use your selected definition to define what a capitalist is or is not. It is very, very simple. If you support capitalism you meet one of the requirements needed to be considered a capitalist. That is all. Yes, there are other requirements as well but in order to meet the minimum definition all one has to do to be a capitalist is support the idea of capitalism. If, after this post, you continue to leave this requirement out of your definition of capitalist then you will meet one of the minimum requirements needed to be considered:

You're obviously too ignorant, or not intelligent enough, to disuss the topic with, you don't even understand word useage, context, and how to use a dictionary.

Go on in your blissful state of ignorance :D

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tormac
Hmm I think by Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com my investmenst make me a capitalist (although I've definatly lost more money than made lately <sigh>)

Of course I also have my job were my labor adds value to something that I did not personaly produce, so I am also labor.

Is it because I do not own a controling share of Cisco that I am not a capatalist?

Marx himself may not have been concerned with the small businessman, but I think that Stalin and Mao and any modern government is.

Malachi151 wrote


I agree with you about Marx's goals. Unfortunatly I think others on this thread would define marxism (or at least comunism) by the goals (and brutal actions) of Stalin and Mao.

Well, trying to use dictionaries to understand terms like capitalist and Marxism is highly problematic in the first place, dictionaries are not in depth references.

I really have to get packing and get ready to move so I can't go on with this, just do a few searches in Google on economics. Try to at least find a glossary fo terms from an economics book.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Marxism is all just about preventing all of the power from being in the hands of a few people.

There is nothing inherent in capitalism that says 'all of the power' must be in the hands of a few people. Although an 'owner' may control his buisness, labourers have the ability to find alternate employment, or even start their own businesses.

To say that Capitalism is about the concentration of power/money into an individual's control is no more accurate than saying Marxism is about the concentration of power ito the hands of an unelected government.

[Tormac]

I'm disappointed that no one can help me out with the difference between Mercantilism and Capitalism.

I saw several posts in this thread that seemed to imply that the polices that the Europeans held towards their colonies were examples of Capitalist and free market exploitation, when I was always under the impression that 17th and 18th century economics were certainly not ruled by the principles of free market capitalism, but mercantilism instead.

Thanks for the help Malachi151. I know that the subjects are complicated ones, and it is hard to explain ones beliefs about a subject in the limiting confines of a short definition from a dictionary.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
"Capitalists" don't do work, by definition. A capitalist is someoen who controls capital.

:rolleyes:

Hopeless. Simply hopeless.

They don't work, they invest and they employ. Someone who is mixing cement is not a capitalist, they are a laborer.

Laborers are capitalists, too. They're a part of the capitalist system, and they both contribute to it and benefit from it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
In its purest for the capitalist never produces anything.

Absolute and complete bullsh*t. They provide goods and services, and get compensated for them, just like laborers do.

There really is no difference between the consumer market and the labor market, except that the roles are generally reversed.

Your friend who owns the laundry mat is probably not considered a capitalist because he owns his own means of producing goods and services.

Wait, I thought a capitalist was anyone who controlled the means of production? This sounds like doublespeak to me.

Marxism is talking about companies or individuals who employ thousands of people, all of whom have little or no control over their own jobs.

:rolleyes:

In other words, fantasy la-la land. Everyone has full control over their own jobs. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is up to them.

Marxism is all just about preventing all of the power from being in the hands of a few people.

What you're blatantly ignoring is that these struggling masses have it much, much better off now than they did under the system you pine for. The economies of scale, which is what you get with large corporations, has an intense ability to create wealth, and the creation of wealth always benefits everybody.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151


You're obviously too ignorant, or not intelligent enough, to disuss the topic with, you don't even understand word useage, context, and how to use a dictionary.

Go on in your blissful state of ignorance :D

That sound you hear is that of numerous Irony-Meters exploding...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
I really have to get packing and get ready to move so I can't go on with this, just do a few searches in Google on economics. Try to at least find a glossary fo terms from an economics book.

Malachi, I've posted enough facts about economics in the course of my tenure on this forum to be able to make an economics textbook of my own. Believe me: You don't have the slightest clue what economics is all about.

[Tormac]

shanek how much work do you think goes into investing a millions dollars? I wonder how much work the CEO of Cisco or GM does, I bet they put more hours in the office in than I do. Maybe they are not "capitalists" either then.


Oh and for anyone who was courious, the first site that came up for me in a google search for "mercantilism" took me to here:
http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/wc2/lectures/mercantilism.html

the second one was here:

http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/mercanti.html

They are interesting reads, and do not sound like free-market capitalism to me.

[Malachi151]

shanek you're an idiot who has no clue what you are talking about.. Go to college and learn *something*!

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Malachi151:
shanek you're an idiot who has no clue what you are talking about.. Go to college and learn *something*!

Well, at least it's not just me you fling ad-homs at. :rolleyes:

Let's do a reprise of some of the things you've been saying:

I really have to get packing and get ready to move so I can't go on with this, just do a few searches in Google on economics. Try to at least find a glossary fo terms from an economics book.

Look up an economics book? This from the man who had already said the following:

Yeah right, like they are going to site that. Textbooks are nest to useless for learning anything significant, thats just stupid drivel for the masses.

Well, you know what they say about "stupid is as stupid does". ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Marxists are not against the merchant class at all.
But what about Marx's analysis that the rise of the merchant class liberated serfs from feudal oppression, but then in the transition to industrial society, the merchant class became the serf/working class's new oppressors by controlling the means of production? ;)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Most marxists are the spoilt offspring of upper class parents. It wouldn't do to bite the hand that feeds you. I shudder to think what might have happened had any of the Socialist Workers Party in my college been forced to do some actual work.
Most marxists aren't, but I wholly agree with you about the Socialist Workers' Party, and particularly the members who are spoilt offspring of upper class parents!

OTOH this capitalist spent his summers grinding and buffing sheet metal, or mixing cement.
I think you're going wrong somewhere with the capitalist thing!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
Absolute and complete bullsh*t. They provide goods and services, and get compensated for them, just like laborers do.

No it's not; if we're going to use Marx's terminology, let's at least use it according to his definitions; a capitalist is someone who draws all or most of their income from the surplus created by the capital they own, whether that capital is property or means of production. If they're providing goods and services from their own labour, they ain't capitalists; they're only capitalists if they're generating surplus from the labour of others.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek

No, the free market system was making slavery obsolete. Go learn history.


Slaves were bought and sold in a fairly (if not completely) unregulated market - and for a long period of time these free markets helped slavery proliferate. Then, for various reasons, conditions changed, and the cost of slaves rose. The free market now curbed the use of slavery to some degree (but, in the case of the US, it still took a war to get rid of the institutonalized slavery throughout the country.)

You want to assign credit to the market curbing slavery on the "down slope", but not accept the market's blame for encouraging slavery on the "up slope."

[Tormac]

I think it is really stretching things a bit to claim that the ideas and principles of free-market capitalism lead to slavery. Most of the economies that slavery flourished in were certainly not free-market capitalist societies, but variations of command economies such as mercantilism that flourished in Europe in the 17th and 18th century.

Slavery was on the way out in most economies, after the industrial revolution, and the notions of a laissez-faire started to become well known, as I think shanek alluded to.

To the extent that slavery held on in some societies, is often attributable to the concepts of mercantilism that also lingered (such as the unindustrialized southern states of the United States).

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Tormac
I think it is really stretching things a bit to claim that the ideas and principles of free-market capitalism lead to slavery. Most of the economies that slavery flourished in were certainly not free-market capitalist societies, but variations of command economies such as mercantilism that flourished in Europe in the 17th and 18th century.



I didn't mean to imply that the concept of free trade / "the free market" lead to slavery. Rather, I wanted to point out that free trade is neutral in this regard, in that it has both helped and hindered the proliferation of slavery at different times. I don't think it's intellecutally honest to look only at the times when free trade has hampered slavery, and use that as an argument that free trade is by nature good.

In the post by Shanek which I replied to, he didn't talk about "free-market capitalism", but only the "free market". (Anyway, I don't really think it's useful to talk about capitalism until the emergency of industrialism. In my opinion, it's only at that point that the production of goods had shifted so far towards being capital intensive rather than labour intensive that one can really talk about "capitalism" as an economic reality.)


Slavery was on the way out in most economies, after the industrial revolution, and the notions of a laissez-faire started to become well known, as I think shanek alluded to.

While the market forces (pushed by the technological advances at the time) were starting to discourage slavery, this effect was in my opinion not inherent to the free market (as the market forces at other times in history had pushed the other way), and much less efficent in curbing slavery than was goverment mandates.


To the extent that slavery held on in some societies, is often attributable to the concepts of mercantilism that also lingered (such as the unindustrialized southern states of the United States).

Frankly, I think that the reason why slavery lingered for so long in the Caribean and southern United States was simply the nature of the plantations, which required large operations with large amounts of unskilled labour.

[Tormac]

Leif Roar wrote Frankly, I think that the reason why slavery lingered for so long in the Caribean and southern United States was simply the nature of the plantations, which required large operations with large amounts of unskilled labour.

But when the plantations systems were created it was under the aegis of mercantilism, not free-market capitalism.

Free-market capitalism is a relatively new idea. It was not in place when the classical Greek and Roman societies were dependent on a slave underclass. It was not Free-Market Capitalist societies that lead to the Medieval serf's toiling with the two other Estates riding on their back. Free-Market Capitalism was not in place when the European powers spread their empires on the backs of indigenous peoples. Free-Market Capitalism is a response to the failed practices of Mercantilism and the Industrial Revolution.

This seems to be a common misconception that somehow there are only two economic systems to-date, and everything that is not Communism/Socialism/Marxism must be Free-Market Capitalism. It is not the case. The notion of a laissez-faire economy came about in response to the failures of the control economy of Mercantilism. It does predate Marxism by about 100 years, but even much of what Marx and Engel saw as economic abuses were not the abuses of a laissez-faire economy, but the remnants of Mercantilism that spawned the huge plantation systems.

[Tormac]

Leif Roar wrote
In the post by Shanek which I replied to, he didn't talk about "free-market capitalism", but only the "free market". (Anyway, I don't really think it's useful to talk about capitalism until the emergency of industrialism. In my opinion, it's only at that point that the production of goods had shifted so far towards being capital intensive rather than labour intensive that one can really talk about "capitalism" as an economic reality.)

It is important to note that it was a command economy that was in place before the industrial revolution, at least for Europe and her colonies. The autocratic governments of Europe strictly controlled markets, demanding that their colonies were only allowed to sell goods and natural resources to the colonizer, and the colonies were only allowed to import manufactured goods from the colonizer. Strict tariffs were in place that greatly favored the colonizer.

This is one of the factors that helped keep slaves in check in island colonizes, and insured that even if there was a successful revolution the newly found slave societies would continue to live in squalor and be economically dependent on the European powers. Markets were not free. It was a crime for Spanish colonies to export to England. It was a crime for the English colonies to import their tea from anyone but the British companies. Often there was only a single government sanctioned company that was allowed to manufacture, import, or export any given good.

Defiantly not a free-market, but a highly regulated, controlled market place with oppressive tax rates.

You are right Leif about when it is useful to talk about capitalism, because it realy did not exsist as an "ecconomic reality" before the industrial revolution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tormac
shanek how much work do you think goes into investing a millions dollars?

A lot. It takes a lot of work to get the millions of dollars in the first place, and then it takes a lot of work to decide where the money can best be invested.

I wonder how much work the CEO of Cisco or GM does, I bet they put more hours in the office in than I do. Maybe they are not "capitalists" either then.

I can't speak to that specifically, but it is a lot of work and a lot of stress.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
No it's not; if we're going to use Marx's terminology,

Who says we have to use Marx's terminology? Why does he get to rewrite the dictionary to fit his arguments?

a capitalist is someone who draws all or most of their income from the surplus created by the capital they own,

From the "surplus," huh? What do you think happens to the rest of it?

whether that capital is property or means of production. If they're providing goods and services from their own labour, they ain't capitalists; they're only capitalists if they're generating surplus from the labour of others.

What you're failing to consider is that the investment of capital is in itself a form of labor exchange. There's no logical difference between an employer paying a wage in return for labor and an investor financing a company expecting a ROI.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Slaves were bought and sold in a fairly (if not completely) unregulated market -

You are kidding, right? Have you ever read the Constitution as it was initially passed?

Besides, slavery, by definition, could not exist in an unregulated market because there would be nothing to enforce teh servitude if the slave escaped. That's why they needed the Fugitive Slave laws.

Then, for various reasons, conditions changed, and the cost of slaves rose. The free market now curbed the use of slavery to some degree (but, in the case of the US, it still took a war to get rid of the institutonalized slavery throughout the country.)

That just isn't true. The US was well on the way towards ending slavery without the war, and the increase in wealth and technology that results from the free market was making it obsolete. There needn't have been any war to free the slaves.

but not accept the market's blame for encouraging slavery on the "up slope."

Because the market didn't do so. It took the force of government.