On Sep 7, 7:08Â am, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> On Sep 6, 10:11Â pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> 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 for the nomination ta but this is the tv station of the future
> and I don't have to deal with the FCC (not yet anyway, although I'm
> sure we've lit up some alarms with some of our posts.)
>
> The reasoning of these people is really strange and it has something
> in common with the thread that comes through some times about breeding
> farm animals, where one side claims that pigs crammed into pens
> getting their tails chewed off are lucky because otherwise they
> wouldn't exist.
Indeed, there is a corollary there.
> I don't think that the big companies are *necessary* for the
> conditions we have to exist, although they certainly reinforce the
> problem. At some point, scarcity *does* arise 'naturally', and then
> all the mechanisms follow that keep it going---that's the nature of
> positive feedback.
>
> All we can do is try to inject some reason into the system to damp
> things down.
How does scarcity arise "naturally" when humans are capable of making
choices that can prevent those conditions from occurring?
> One problem, particularly in the US I think, is that people have been
> brainwashed into thinking that *their* kids are the ones who will be
> eating Brandywines when everyone else's are eating cardboard.
>
> Another is something I just read but can't remember where about how
> expectations shift down over time---another factor in commodification.
> People get used to eating cardboard, and then you can raise the price
> for the cardboard so they get to eat even less of it. Whoopee,
> progress....
>
> -tg
Interesting point. :-(
