On Sep 6, 3:21Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Sep 6, 2:54Â am, "Sean"
now.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>> "Publius"
nospam.comcast.net> wrote in message>
>>news:Xns9B10E6B261EC6mpubliusnospamcomcas@216.196.97.136...
>
>
>>>>> "Capitalist" has two senses. It may refer to an adherent or advocate
>>>>> of natural economics (a free market economy), or it may refer to a
>>>>> person who provides financing for a productive endeavor or
>>>>> enterprise.
>
>>>>> A capitalist in the second sense provides the financing which allow
>>>>> the farmers to buy seed, machinery, and fertilizers, the carpenter to
>>>>> buy tools, vehicles, lumber, and other supplies, and the carpenter to
>>>>> buy an inventory of fabrics and sewing machines.
>
>>>>> A capitalist in the first sense tries his best to keep politicians
>>>>> pandering to free-lunchers at bay so that the capitalist in the
>>>>> second sense, and the farmers, carpenters, and tailors can perform
>>>>> their work without interference.
>
>>>>> Hope this clears things up for you.
>
>>>> Thanks, but I don't see any clarity there.
>
>>>> A person who provides loans or financing is well a lender, a
>>>> financier, or maybe even a banker. Plonking the label of capitalist on
>>>> any of those is meaningless.
>
>>> Sorry, but that is one of the dictionary definitions.
>
>
>>> A "capitalist" is anyone who supplies capital --- money --- to a
>>> business or other constructive endeavor, usually with an expectation of
>>> a return, or profit. Lenders and investors are both capitalists.
>
>> You are playing sophistry with words, and leaning on a dictionary on an
>> appeal to authority. You have no authority here. I know what I meant, and I
>> know it is accurate and true. Attempt to spin out any way you wish will not
>> change the reality and truth of my statements.
>
>> A lender and an investor is, a lender and an investor first. The rest is
>> nothing more than spin on your part.
>
>>>> My dad leant me money, did that make him a capitalist, or a kind and
>>>> supportive father who happened to be cashed up at the time?
>
>>> Probably not, since his investment was probably not productive and did
>>> not earn him a profit.
>
>> Now you are making the error of assumption, nay prsumption. Your point of
>> view is inherently flawed.
>
>>>> Dare I mention that people and organisations also lent money to other
>>>> people/orgs/factories in the old USSR and  in Maoist China, and still
>>>> today in Cuba  --- are they therefore automatically "capitalists" ?
>
>>> The USSR practiced a system of state capitalism. I.e., the state was the
>>> only legal capitalist.
>
>> Sophistry again, that totally ignored what I stated. People or organisations
>> that lend money, are not automatically "capitalists". If you cannot
>> comprehend that simple point, then don't bother attempting to address what I
>> say, just ignore me.
>
>>>> May I also mention in passing, because i think it's really too obvious
>>>> to be worth mentioning at all, but the "capitalist system" is anything
>>>> BUT natural economics or a free market in ANY sense of those words.
>
>>> Indeed? What do you consider to be the earmarks of a free, or natural
>>> economy?
>
>> Many things. You can work it out if you are clever enough.
>
>> What it is not, is capitalism.
>
>>> If you are claiming that the American economy (or the economies of most
>>> other states) in the early 21st century is not free or natural, then of
>>> course I'd agree. The US economy was free until the 1930s; since then it
>>> has become badly infected by statism.
>
>> Then you have just shot down your own belief system.
>
>> You said before and I QUOTE YOUR WORDS
>
>> ""Capitalist" has two senses. It may refer to an adherent or advocate
>> Â of natural economics (a free market economy), ........."
>
>> NOW you state that the American economy which is the heroic leader of
>> Capitalism in the world for over 200 years, as noted by Historical records,
>> Corporations, Politicians, and the average citizen today ......... * is not
>> free or natural *!!
>
>> Which is it?
>
>> I'll tell you .............. Captialism is NOT a free market in any way
>> shape or form, and it has NEVER been, now or in the past.
>
>>>> It is in fact and reality, a highly controlled, manipulated, and
>>>> unnatural inhumane economic model, a hairs breath in difference from
>>>> any communist or totalitarian state you may believe you can compare it
>>>> to in a better light.
>
>>> I assume you are referring to the controls and manipulations carried out
>>> by gummint at all levels. It is perhaps hyperbole to describe it as a
>>> "hairs breath from totalitarianism," but I agree it is heading that
>>> direction.
>
>> And again you make the agregious error of assumption.
>
>> I am referring to the "highly controlled, manipulated, and unnatural
>> inhumane economic model" that is used by CAPITALISTS of all persuasions. Be
>> it the likes of you, Fred, Rupert Murdoch, Enron, the Fed, or the
>> politicians/law makers, and those that pander to all of the above.
>
>> If you have any desire for me to read what you write here, then I'd suggest
>> dropping the sophistry, dropping the schytzophrenic point of view, and
>> dropping the pretense and manipulations. Otherwise I am simply not
>> interested.
>
>> It's a philosophy newsgroup, not a dumbed down politcal rally for
>> self-obsessed special interest groups.
>
> Ok I'll stop posting then. ;-)
>
> I don't know if this is philosophy or not, but there are people here
> who recognize bs propaganda and really basic fallacies when they see
> them. Â The really really basic fallacy with saying that capitalism
> cures scarcity is that you don't reduce the scarcity of the product in
> question but you replace it. Â Watching sports on tv is not watching
> sports in person. Â Cardboard-textured tomatoes are not fresh tomatoes.
> (That particular product comes to mind because we've got a fine crop
> of Brandywines this summer. Average around 1 lb 4 oz with the largest
> so far 1.5 lbs. Â And then there's the taste....) And on and on for
> almost everything you can think of.
>
> Commodification is perhaps inevitably the result of a system such as
> we have now, whatever you call it. Â It is very likely that it
> *increases* the scarcity of quality products, perhaps even by
> definition.
>
> -tg
In addition, scarcity is beneficial to those that control the scarce
resource. If Monsanto, Cargill, and ADM can essentially control the
world's food supply, increased scarcity (i.e., larger populations)
benefits them, in a narrow financial self-interest kind of way. What
they really want is more people living at low standards so a few can
increase theirs.
In addition to the bona fide scarcity of resources, there is also
*manufactured* scarcity in many cases. Enron is one obvious and well-
known example of this kind of manipulation.
The bottom line is that the earth contains a finite amount of natural
resources. All humans can maintain a high standard of living with
those existing finite resources indefinitely if we so choose, but
we're obviously using/destroying more than is being replenished. No
amount of free market religion or magic capitalism changes that simple
fact.
The scary thing is that Fred's childish, misguided reasoning is
commonplace. Just tune into Larry Kudlow on CNBC.
I think you should abandon your presidential campaign and start up a
TV station instead.
>> Thanks Sean
>
>>>> Try again P. Â You decide.
>
>>>> Thinking folks may also like to consider the in-built waste of the
>>>> capitalist/economic model that actually in fact and reality has and is
>>>> still causing scarcity in the world to a greater degree overall than
>>>> any level of apparently global abundance or value to humanity or
>>>> individuals.
>
>>>> But hey, that's just me. I'm not so easily fooled by self-serving
>>>> con-men these days.
