Capitalism: Explain how it creates "wealth and prosperity"?

[SuperDemocrat]

Some founders may have owned slaves. They were far from great.

I really do think that a lot of the people who helped form this country in the beginning. I know they owned slaves but I really don't give a shit anymore whether or not they did or not. I know a lot of them were probably racist in their own time but who cares. Even Abe Lincoln thought black people were inferior. He even said it during the Lincoln Douglass debates but who gives a shit. Do I actually see the left ripping into the great champion of the ender of state's rights? NOPE! That is because it doesn't serve the purpose of their political goals which is to destroy any kind of limits to government power. Anyone in history who advocates for liberty and freedom from government and happens to think that the people in power shouldn't consider themselves superior to those they have power over is trashed. I give you constant attack on the founders of this country. We can't spend one day without being reminded of all the evil deeds they did. I hear it so often that I no longer care and will keep on going on about the wonderful things they have done.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

Here is my direct answer: Should a Nation or a State be allowed to own the labor of another person?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

They are paid what the work is worth to the employer at the time of the agreement to work for pay. All produced by the employee becomes and remains the property of the employer, unless a further additional agreement is agreed to.

If the pay in trade for the labor is not sufficient, the employee is free to reject the offer of the trade and seek a more advantageous agreement elsewhere.

Also, should at any time the employee and employer disagree on the employee's subjective decision that his work is worth more than the employer is willing to pay per the original agreement, the employee is again free to dissolve the agreement and seek a more advantageous agreement elsewhere.

Now, just what IS your overall problem?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

Here is my direct answer: Should a Nation or a State be allowed to own the labor of another person?

Sure, because the labor agreed to it. That's how our country works.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Ohhh Randall did I hit a nerve? Sorry.

What the hell "nerve" would that be? That you're retired? Big deal. So am I . I'm 72. I retired from the US Army AND a civilian occupation. I get 2 retirements plus SS.

What the hell is your point?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How can a person who is poor open their own business when the barriers to entry are high and the only way to make money is to compete in a labor market controlled by the owners who have no vested interest in competition or seeing you succeed?

What barriers to entry?

Cost to own other essential property such as floor space, tools, you know, CAPITAL.

There is a cost to owning CAPITAL, one that most LABOR cannot afford because CAPITALIST pay LABOR less than they are WORTH.

I don't know about that. I have several business owners in my family. They started their own construction business and worked for themselves.

I have two cousins that are remodelers. They started their businesses with a hammer and a saw. I have an uncle the same, another uncle that was a carpenter. My father was a bricklayer and he could have worked for himself anytime he wanted. He used to do side work on the weekends and could have expanded on that. He chose to work for others, but again, was a choice. Prior to that, he did join my other uncles for a while and they had their own business together.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow you are very naive.

Your name-calling doesn't explain why a person can't operate his own business rather than opt to be employed by someone else.

How can a person who is poor open their own business when the barriers to entry are high and the only way to make money is to compete in a labor market controlled by the owners who have no vested interest in competition or seeing you succeed?

Foreigners do it all the time. They come here with two dollars in their pockets and barely able to speak the language. Yet, somehow, they work night and day, save up to buy a convenience store or franchise like 7-11, and they continue to work night and day.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

People kind of act like that people who own businesses don't work as if they are just sitting in their offices all day. They actually are but they are making decisions about their businesses and doing things to make their businesses grow. It is not manual labor but it is still work because they ain't sitting at home watching reruns of the A-team, collecting welfare, or living off of their relatives. I don't know why manual labor is glorified by the left. I think manual labor is something most people don't want to do but have to because it is the only job they can do. That doesn't make it superior to other people's work at all since it is generally the kind of work no one wants to do. It only has value because it pays the bills and their is nothing wrong with that in that respect but it is still something most people would prefer not to do. I personally don't want to see a country where the best and only opportunities are in the lowest paying jobs out there. I like the fact that their is plenty of opportunity created in a system where people are free to choose what they want to do and pursue in life. The really great and cozy job that I like was created by the guy above me who wanted something more. I like the system because of that. It creates jobs and good jobs that people actually like to work at. It is easy to see how dissatisfied with our jobs people are when their is a recession. They work at jobs because they have to but in a booming economy they have options to find something better which is why America is awesome place to work. Germany has a lot of socialist type institutions but they also have a free market that creates a lot of jobs. Imagine what Germany would look like without private employers. Surely not everyone is working for the government there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Capitalism doesn't create anything. People do.

However capitalism is the tool they use to make such creations. In other countries, it doesn't matter what the people do. If you are poor, you will always be poor. That's why they try and come here.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Capitalism doesn't create anything. People do.

However capitalism is the tool they use to make such creations. In other countries, it doesn't matter what the people do. If you are poor, you will always be poor. That's why they try and come here.

A lot of people don't know this but capitalism was a word coined by early socialist to describe the kind of society that has free markets.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simply:

No person should be allowed to own the labor of another person.

But when a business owner or stock-holder buys ownership of a company what the majority of them are doing is buying rights to work, and then they rent that job to employees at a fee (called profit).

Unless the 1% billionaires who own 50% of America's wealth make 50% of America's Gross Domestic Product, then this is completely true.

Those billionaires make their money by siphoning the fruit of "non-owner's" labor, of worker's labor.

Tell us how this is just, fair, or righteous?

If an employee can't make the employer money, why have the employee? You don't hire people to break even.

If we restructured how ownership is legally supported we could have a break-even society. Why should one person gain from the productivity of everyone else?

True, we could be like Cuba. Over there, everybody is equal; equally poor.

"People ask if I feel bad about getting ahead and leaving others behind. The idea of getting ahead IS to leave others behind. After all, if we all moved ahead the same distance at the same time, then nobody gets ahead."
Andrew Wilkow

 

[rdean]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Republicans on the USMB think southern slave holders were liberals. That Lincoln may or may not have been a confederate since he was a conservative. They aren't sure why the north is so liberal and the south so conservative. But they are sure conservative freed the slaves from those dern liberals.

This is not satire. Probably most of them totally believe it.

 

[rdean]

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

You gotta pay the organizer. Otherwise, there would have been no company. Conversely, if you fuck over the employees, the company may not last. Republicans still follow the conservative slave/master template for worker/owner.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Simply:

No person should be allowed to own the labor of another person.

But when a business owner or stock-holder buys ownership of a company what the majority of them are doing is buying rights to work, and then they rent that job to employees at a fee (called profit).

Unless the 1% billionaires who own 50% of America's wealth make 50% of America's Gross Domestic Product, then this is completely true.

Those billionaires make their money by siphoning the fruit of "non-owner's" labor, of worker's labor.

Tell us how this is just, fair, or righteous?

dear , when people interact freely because they feel better off as a result of the interaction they are far better off than when a nazi like you forces them at the point of a gun to interact on the the terms you dictate. Do you understand?

People aren't interacting freely if one class of people have no say in the negotiation of terms.

How dense and stupid are conservatives? REALLY.

Do you have negotiating terms when buying a car? How about buying a house? How about buying a lawn tractor? Then how do you not have negotiating terms when taking a job?

All negotiations have limits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

An employee is paid to perform a service. He is paid 100% of the agreed upon amount.

The agreed amount? People don't agree to work for slave wages, they are forced to work for them because a labor market that is controlled by owners, not by workers.

There are different levels of labor, and each level has different pay. If you are not making the desired money because of your skill level, then the solution is to move up a level or two.

 

[bripat9643]

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

Your question is based on the labor theory of value, which was debunked over 100 years ago. Employees are paid what the agreed to be paid. If they don't like the pay, they are free to work elsewhere.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

It's called employment

Are Employees paid 100% of what they produce? If not, by what justification are they not paid for all the work they did?

Employees know the wage when they accept employment, where are you trying to go with this?

What does that have to do with anything?

Slaves know how much food they are going to get per meal when they go work the cotton fields.

You are describing a system that allows people to legally own the labor of another, but blame the victims for the system?

Pathetic.

Slaves didn't have the choice of their owners. Apples and oranges.

 

[bripat9643]

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Abraham Lincoln
Read more at Abraham Lincoln Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

Definition: Capitalism -
Capital is owned by a class called the "Capitalist" class, and power rests with them and theoretically the middle class which is co-opted.

An example of a purely Capitalist society would be the Slave South, In the SLAVE SOUTH all the means of production were privately owned, governments were small and non-interfering into the all powerful plantation owner and his personal law over his property, a small few owned all the means of production.

No one would confuse the Slave South with a prosperous country:

90% of all antebellum Southerners were poor, and unable to find gainful employment.

Conservatives have a hard time actually explaining anything, but I won't put words in their mouth, I'll start the discussion by giving a short explanation of where "wealth and prosperity actually comes from".

Historians call it "effluence", political theorists have written thousands of pages on country's "take-offs". One thing is certain, it doesn't matter what socio-economic model you have, wealth and prosperity is possible in any of them.

The Soviet Union was the world's 2nd largest economy, and had the world's 2nd highest per-capita between 1950-1973, after which declining oil prices, and rising demands of an arms race began to degrade their civil-sector economic growth. Chernobyl's destruction of 25% of all USSR Wheat production and $4 Trillion dollar clean-up price tag (in 2015 dollars) didn't help things either.

China is still Communist with state-owned enterprises still leading an economy experiencing 6.9% growth and the largest growth of middle class the world has ever seen.

Where does "wealth and prosperity" actually come from?

Well in short, it comes from monetizing goods and services.

If you can convert a bushel of wheat into money, you've effectively monetized a commodity, which increases the amount of capital in circulation. It doesn't matter if a society is capitalist or communist. If you can monetize a commodity you can convert it into Capital.

What is capital?

Capital is various things, in the 1800s and early 1900s it would have been easily defined as "Means of Production" so factories, tools, mines, farms, things of that nature. But today we've been able to liquidate capital (Monetize the means of production) so in the modern world Capital is largely "money".

Money allows you to represent the means of production, or other things less productive like consumer goods.

Conclusion:

So now that we have established some examples of wealthy non-Capitalist societies, now that we have a working definition of Capital and Capitalism, and a basic illustration of how wealth is created (it is goods and services monetized and therefore liquid and portable to anyone who can accumulate it), I challenge conservatives or anyone else to explain how "Capitalism" is responsible for wealth and prosperity?

What causes wealth and prosperity?

Efficient means of monetizing goods and services, and a broad mechanism for distributing that money to the masses of all society.

A capitalist society is TERRIBLE at accomplishing this task.

Rather than capitalism (whatever that is), I advocate for liberty and secure property rights. When people are secure in their property rights and have liberty, they have an incentive to invest in capital goods, which increase production and prosperity.

Should a person be allowed to own the labor of another person? ANSWER THIS DIRECTLY.

If the person or corp pays for the labor they own it

I didn't ask you to say what happens, but SHOULD it happen?

Why should someone be able to buy and own the labor of someone else?

Apparently you believe people shouldn't be able to sell their labor. If they can't sell it, they don't own it.

 

[bripat9643]

Simply:

No person should be allowed to own the labor of another person.

But when a business owner or stock-holder buys ownership of a company what the majority of them are doing is buying rights to work, and then they rent that job to employees at a fee (called profit).

Unless the 1% billionaires who own 50% of America's wealth make 50% of America's Gross Domestic Product, then this is completely true.

Those billionaires make their money by siphoning the fruit of "non-owner's" labor, of worker's labor.

Tell us how this is just, fair, or righteous?

There is no "right to work." Employees sell their labor to their employers. If they don't like the deal, they are free to sell it to someone else. The employer owns nothing other than the usufructs he has already paid for.

 

[bripat9643]

Simply:

No person should be allowed to own the labor of another person.

But when a business owner or stock-holder buys ownership of a company what the majority of them are doing is buying rights to work, and then they rent that job to employees at a fee (called profit).

Unless the 1% billionaires who own 50% of America's wealth make 50% of America's Gross Domestic Product, then this is completely true.

Those billionaires make their money by siphoning the fruit of "non-owner's" labor, of worker's labor.

Tell us how this is just, fair, or righteous?

dear , when people interact freely because they feel better off as a result of the interaction they are far better off than when a nazi like you forces them at the point of a gun to interact on the the terms you dictate. Do you understand?

People aren't interacting freely if one class of people have no say in the negotiation of terms.

How dense and stupid are conservatives? REALLY.

Of course they have a say. No one points a gun at their head and forces them to accept the terms offered.