Yeah, they don’t want to hear how it is completely illogical for a ‘man of science’ to come up with a term that is inherently pejorative in nature to classify an economic system as they always try to claim.
This has to be at least the third flamefest over the meaning of ‘capitalism’.
This is not how capitalism is implemented in the present. Laborers have the greatest risk. They are subject to layoff at any time. Their wages are eroded by inflation. Laborers are at risk for their skills becoming obsolete, especially in the area of software (my specialty).
Capitalists have no risk. They will usually receive a bailout. FRE and FNM received a State guarantee of their loans. The financial industry is being bailed out by inflation and interest rate cuts. A CEO who does a bad job will usually find another high-paying job easily, due to his connections. A hedge fund manager who loses billions of dollars can usually start a new fund.
No, this is proof that capitalism isn’t implemented in the present.
Proof that a certain definition of capitalism has not been implemented. But to most people, intellectuals or not, this is what capitalism means. The word can’t really be justified except by reference to a handful of economists and even then only occasionally. It’s use by libertarians is largely an accident, and we should realise it’s as pointless to appeal to people with ‘capitalism’ as it is to start calling our beliefs ‘socialism’ because the State is anti-thetical to civil society. Whether it’s use can be justified in some form does not mean it makes sense to use it at present.
It was. I went to sleep last night regretting I posted it. I apologize.
I believe you’re consistently taking liberties with redefining and predefining every conversation.
Very clever. “political left”. I don’t think Ego was wrong when he had you pegged as a leftist. I thought his arguments with you were an enormous waste of time, his obsession with which eventually drove him to leave the forum, and now I have put myself in the same trap. The test will be whether I can develop self control in the absence of an ignore function.
You’re a skilled debater. As long as no one looks for the man behind the curtain.
I think it’s a defense mechanism. The self-alignment with groups and terms, it’s a person seeking to define himself by the standards of others.
It speaks to a mindset of trying to rationalize the irrational.
No, it really isn’t. The nerd in that movie wasn’t very angry.
Always interesting to see the complete economic ignorance underlying the “capitalism is statism” crowd.
Reward is the other side of the coin of risk. Wage laborers get paid even if the product they make does not sell, they can also be fired even if the product does sell.
This is a risk faced by owners of human capital.
A CEO is not a capitalist, he labors for the shareholders who are the capitalists. The fact that he gets paid regardless of how the company ends up is an example of labor being isolated from risk.
Of course there is nothing wrong with having “connections”, if my brother gets me a fabricating job whats the difference?
Some people have no risk. This class includes those people connected to the state, which isn’t all capitalist.Tell a small business owner that the state won’t let him fail.
It also include members of state sponsored labor unions.
A good example of how state-capitalism is easily distinguished from, and very unlike, market capitalism.
Any form of wage labour is an implementation of capitalism as defined by the Marxists and Austrians, since whatever a worker’s productivity on the capital of the enterprise, only the capitalist is affected.
That doesn’t describe the current system. It is absurd to say that the worker is not affected. It seems as if you conveniently switch between defending the concept of a free market and defending the effects of the current system that take place in the unfree market. Furthermore, if what you say is to be taken at face value, then your defense of “capitalism” must defend any involuntary “wage labor” involved. “Any form of wage labor” is quite vague and may include some things that are not reconcilable with individual liberty.
I fail to see why you can’t admit that workers are largely screwed by the current system.
And yet you and your kind repeatedly defend the effects of state-capitalism that take place in markets in the name of free markets. It’s you who is conveniently shifting in and out of making the distinction.
So, wage laborers are not free from risk. So, Stranger’s characterization of ‘capitalism’ is wrong.
How so? I think Jon’s argument makes perfect sense.
If a business fails, both the ‘capitalist’ and wage laborers are out of work, so none of them are really insulated from risk. Even if a business doesn’t fail, employees can be fired - risk again. Nothing is risk-free.
Right, but I think that wasn’t the argument.
The wage labourers are paid even if the company goes bust, the capitalist loses all of his capital and generates an enormous loss. And they can freely go to work for another company, a capitalist cannot necessarily so easily replace his capital losses. That is the difference. A wage labourer can work for a company that goes bust and break even. Rarely is that so for the capitalist.
Incorrect.
The laborers have already been compensated for their labor. If the business fails they keep the money they earned and move onto a new employer.
The capitalist, on the other hand, can lose his capital.
One more in a long line of unsupported acquisations. The beauty of ad hominems.
You have the curious habit of confusioning your argument with other people’s. You attack all “capitalism” but that does not automatically mean that Stranger defends all “capitalism”.
Though I don’t think I’ve seen many people use the term “wages” to describe slavery. If you could force people to work against their will why bother with wages? Wages exist to convince people to voluntarily work.
That may be true but I don’t think it counters my point : being a wage laborer may be less risky than being an entrepreneur, but it’s not risk-free.
The workers never assumed the risk in the first place. They know when entering the contract that it must be renewed at every paycheck.