This was a very nuanced conversation I had with him. He was implying that him buying a good then selling it at profit is capitalist act only if you are rich, thus, not poor.
Btw, I went to an anti-capitalist art gallery/store with him one time. There were people there paying $40 to $120 for a 12 by 20 print of an anti-capitalist poster that was mass-produced. I’m guessing those prints didn’t cost more than $10 to make. But I guess it’s not overpriced when it’s for the cause.
An “anti-capitalist store”? [:D] That’s rich!
Why? (And what’s the dividing line between rich and poor? 50k US fiat, 30k US fiat, 70k… Whatever this magical number is, they must know!)
Sounds like you have a lot of work ahead of you if you intend on challenging this silliness. They don’t even understand the terms they’re using. [:(]
In England you’re “poor” if you’re on the government dole, so you get your own housing and welfare. I worked two decent jobs and rented a room in a house. I was “rich”. [^o)]
How dare you say that about graduate students! Shame on you!
It depends on the institutional response to the initial appearance of the crisis.
If the market is left to itself, the part that is thought of as “the crisis” (that is, the “bust” of the business cycle) is indeed when capital starts to be accumulated again after the capital consumption of the “boom”. So, more capital is being created than if the bust were delayed, but not as much as if the unsustainable boom had never been induced in the first place. (See the article in my sig, for more on this).
If the market is not left to itself, then government measures could very well hamper capital accumulation, or even induce capital consumption, as during the New Deal and as during the present crisis.