What Capitalism has Done for the Common Man.

[miami_thomas]

Capitalism often serves to uplift and enrich the common man.

Capitalisism sometimes serves to do just the opposite, and markets can not be expected to properly allocate nonmarket goods. That's where government's role arises.

For instance?

The Enclosure laws in England.

And do I really need to explain why the market doesn't properly allocate nonmarket goods?

really? I will if need be, but....

The Enclosure was caused by government tampering first. So how can you blame something caused by government on the free market?

 

[Publius1787]

Cobb (and Douglas) wasn't a classical economist?

Surely you jest.

What branch of economic thought did Cobb and Douglas associate with?

Neoclassical. The function you describe is a "neoclassical three stage production function." http://www.uky.edu/~deberti/prod/AgprodCD2007/CH11 revised A.pdf
Neoclassical growth model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you might be confused. The function is Wicksellian, later refined by Cobb and Douglas. Wicksell predated the earliest references to "neoclassical" by decades. Neoclassical economics refers most commonly to the economics of the post-WW2 synthesis - long after Cobb and Douglas refined the production function.

Yeah, as seen in previous posts, to include the one where you contested that the Constitution gives no authority to build the seat of government, I am convinced that there is no length that you will not go through to argue a lost point.

 

[miami_thomas]

Nobody's against capitalism, just savage, corrupt, cronyism Pub capitalism, epitomized by Neocon Voodoo Reaganism, which has slowly fegged the nonrich and the country- and then totally ruined the world. Let's do it again! Moron dupes, greedy idiot megarich Pubs... see sig pp1.

I know, let's cut taxes on the bloated rich, destroy Medicare and health reform, raise taxes and fees on the nonrich, let corporate cheats run wild, cut aid to states and localities, raise military spending to more than the rest of the world combined, and worry about the debt in 2035. Absolute idiocy, dupes.

First, democrats, just as much as republicans, have used crony capitalism. Second, the things you talk about destroying are actual government entitlements which would not be capitalism.

 

[8537]

Neoclassical. The function you describe is a "neoclassical three stage production function." http://www.uky.edu/~deberti/prod/AgprodCD2007/CH11 revised A.pdf
Neoclassical growth model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you might be confused. The function is Wicksellian, later refined by Cobb and Douglas. Wicksell predated the earliest references to "neoclassical" by decades. Neoclassical economics refers most commonly to the economics of the post-WW2 synthesis - long after Cobb and Douglas refined the production function.

Yeah, as seen in previous posts, to include the one where you contested that the Constitution gives no authority to build the seat of government, I am convinced that there is no length that you will not go through to argue a lost point.

Let me see if I have this right: You are claiming that Wicksell was a neoclassical economist?

Lol.

 

[8537]

For instance?

The Enclosure laws in England.

And do I really need to explain why the market doesn't properly allocate nonmarket goods?

really? I will if need be, but....

The Enclosure was caused by government tampering first.

Eh, huh? The enclosure was capitalism.

 

[asaratis]

The problem is keeping capitalism, capitalistic. It's like economist Friedman said, capitalism runs on greed, so some, pretending to be capitalists, end up trying to destroy capitalism by creating monopolies, mergers, holding companies and so on. To keep capitalism alive and well, government has had to pass all kinds of laws and regulations keeping the greedy ones from destroying our capitalistic economic system.

Friedman never said that, you lying piece of crap. Friedman lobbied incessantly to cut regulations. You read commie propaganda and then somehow attribute it to Friedman. I challenge you to produce a single quote of Friedman saying anything you claim he said.

Friedman did say that capitalism runs on greed...he followed that immediately with the statement that liberalism also runs on greed as does communism...
I don't know that he said anything about favoring massive regulations. He simply embraced the capitalistic economy as the most successful of all in providing wealth to greedy, hard working people.

Liberalism, socialism and communism provide meager, demeaning ways of subsistence to lazy but greedy leeches.

 

[Publius1787]

I think you might be confused. The function is Wicksellian, later refined by Cobb and Douglas. Wicksell predated the earliest references to "neoclassical" by decades. Neoclassical economics refers most commonly to the economics of the post-WW2 synthesis - long after Cobb and Douglas refined the production function.

Yeah, as seen in previous posts, to include the one where you contested that the Constitution gives no authority to build the seat of government, I am convinced that there is no length that you will not go through to argue a lost point.

Let me see if I have this right: You are claiming that Wicksell was a neoclassical economist?

Lol.

As I said. There is no lenght that you will not go through to argue a lost point. See below.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5821281-post359.html

 

[8537]

Yeah, as seen in previous posts, to include the one where you contested that the Constitution gives no authority to build the seat of government, I am convinced that there is no length that you will not go through to argue a lost point.

Let me see if I have this right: You are claiming that Wicksell was a neoclassical economist?

Lol.

As I said. There is no lenght that you will not go through to argue a lost point. See below.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5821281-post359.html

You seem to be struggling with the topic at hand: Are you claiming that Wicksell, Cobb and Douglas were neoclassical economists?

Are you also planning to stand by your claim that classical economists didn't account for technology? Because I remember this old economist telling a story about a pin factory and increaeses in technology that increased production. Do you know that story?

That story represented the "A" in the production function.

 

[Publius1787]

Let me see if I have this right: You are claiming that Wicksell was a neoclassical economist?

Lol.

As I said. There is no lenght that you will not go through to argue a lost point. See below.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5821281-post359.html

You seem to be struggling with the topic at hand: Are you claiming that Wicksell, Cobb and Douglas were neoclassical economists?

Are you also planning to stand by your claim that classical economists didn't account for technology? Because I remember this old economist telling a story about a pin factory and increaeses in technology that increased production. Do you know that story?

That story represented the "A" in the production function.

No matter how wrong you've been proven to be beyond any shadow of a doubt, you will continue to endlessly argue. My claim is supported on a number of links. If you want to cite a man who was on the crest of a classical/neoclassical era then fine. The classical era couldn't stand on its own forever and someone was bound to come out with new economics. But arguing the point is useless, futile, and irrelevant on the merits. Especially with you, who will argue an obviously failed point to the ends of the earth.

 

[8537]

As I said. There is no lenght that you will not go through to argue a lost point. See below.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/5821281-post359.html

You seem to be struggling with the topic at hand: Are you claiming that Wicksell, Cobb and Douglas were neoclassical economists?

Are you also planning to stand by your claim that classical economists didn't account for technology? Because I remember this old economist telling a story about a pin factory and increaeses in technology that increased production. Do you know that story?

That story represented the "A" in the production function.

No matter how wrong you've been proven to be beyond any shadow of a doubt, you will continue to endlessly argue. My claim is supported on a number of links. If you want to cite a man who was on the crest of a classical/neoclassical era then fine.

The neoclassical era didn't start until 25 years after Cobb and Douglas...and a century after Wicksell.

...And almost 200 years after technology was brought to economics in a story about pins.

 

[American Horse]

If Capitalism has benefited the "common man" I can assure you it was unintentional.

I agree. That’s how capitalism works. Separate people pursuing their separate interests, dealing in a manner of which parties come to an agreement in order to exchange goods and services.

The first free man was a capitalist and a free trader.
There were no free men before the first trader went from tribe to tribe with trinkets to trade and capitalize on. He was allowed to be free because to inhibit his travels deprived the chiefs and their hangers on of the fruit of his labors.

The Trader was also probably the first individual.
He became an individual not by choice but by circumstances. He was either a straggler left behind or a fugitive or a sole survivor. Earliest trade was foreign trade – the trader was a foreigner – and it was trade in luxuries; trade in necessities was a late development. Can't you see the first trader, and outsider, approaching a strange human group bearing a gift of something new and desirable, and then going on from group to group exchanging gifts?

 

[Publius1787]

You seem to be struggling with the topic at hand: Are you claiming that Wicksell, Cobb and Douglas were neoclassical economists?

Are you also planning to stand by your claim that classical economists didn't account for technology? Because I remember this old economist telling a story about a pin factory and increaeses in technology that increased production. Do you know that story?

That story represented the "A" in the production function.

No matter how wrong you've been proven to be beyond any shadow of a doubt, you will continue to endlessly argue. My claim is supported on a number of links. If you want to cite a man who was on the crest of a classical/neoclassical era then fine.

The neoclassical era didn't start until 25 years after Cobb and Douglas...and a century after Wicksell.

...And almost 200 years after technology was brought to economics in a story about pins.

And this does nothing the refute the validity of my previous statement.

 

[8537]

No matter how wrong you've been proven to be beyond any shadow of a doubt, you will continue to endlessly argue. My claim is supported on a number of links. If you want to cite a man who was on the crest of a classical/neoclassical era then fine.

The neoclassical era didn't start until 25 years after Cobb and Douglas...and a century after Wicksell.

...And almost 200 years after technology was brought to economics in a story about pins.

And this does nothing the refute the validity of my previous statement.

Your previous statement that Cobb and Douglas' 1925 article was neoclassical or your claim that classical economcs never takes into account technology?

Both are wrong, clearly. The pin factory example was the role of technology, in 1776, by a guy who knew a bit about economics.

The idea that a paper written in 1925 building on ideas from 1850 was neoclassical even though the neoclassical school of thought arrived after Keynes is hard to explain, at best.

 

[there4eyeM]

Blind faith in anything is seldom justified.

 

[antagon]

The same human tendency to dominate and gain power works in all human systems, whether it be business, politics, religion or almost whatever have you.
So, the same people who would dominate a capitalist system would dominate the control of it. It is the same type of person.
Evidently, it is not by attacking the institution that victory can be achieved. Human psychology must evolve.

Nah. Not any time soon. The challenge is to develop an institution to accommodate our psychology, rather than conform it or pray it evolves.

 

[Publius1787]

If Capitalism has benefited the "common man" I can assure you it was unintentional.

I agree. That’s how capitalism works. Separate people pursuing their separate interests, dealing in a manner of which parties come to an agreement in order to exchange goods and services.

The first free man was a capitalist and a free trader.
There were no free men before the first trader went from tribe to tribe with trinkets to trade and capitalize on. He was allowed to be free because to inhibit his travels deprived the chiefs and their hangers on of the fruit of his labors.

The Trader was also probably the first individual.
He became an individual not by choice but by circumstances. He was either a straggler left behind or a fugitive or a sole survivor. Earliest trade was foreign trade – the trader was a foreigner – and it was trade in luxuries; trade in necessities was a late development. Can't you see the first trader, and outsider, approaching a strange human group bearing a gift of something new and desirable, and then going on from group to group exchanging gifts?

Sure.

 

[there4eyeM]

The same human tendency to dominate and gain power works in all human systems, whether it be business, politics, religion or almost whatever have you.
So, the same people who would dominate a capitalist system would dominate the control of it. It is the same type of person.
Evidently, it is not by attacking the institution that victory can be achieved. Human psychology must evolve.

Nah. Not any time soon. The challenge is to develop an institution to accommodate our psychology, rather than conform it or pray it evolves.

That, in turn, must become corrupt if we apply the failed Old Way Thinking.

 

[miami_thomas]

The Enclosure laws in England.

And do I really need to explain why the market doesn't properly allocate nonmarket goods?

really? I will if need be, but....

The Enclosure was caused by government tampering first.

Eh, huh? The enclosure was capitalism.

Inflation caused by the government forced them to try and capitalize in the environment created by that inflation.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Can't you see the first trader, and outsider, approaching a strange human group bearing a gift of something new and desirable, and then...."

being clubbed to death, eaten and his goods distributed evenly throughout the tribe. Yes, I see it.

As clearly as a capitalist system could exist BEFORE CAPITAL!

 

[Publius1787]

The Enclosure was caused by government tampering first.

Eh, huh? The enclosure was capitalism.

Inflation caused by the government forced them to try and capitalize in the environment created by that inflation.

Who wouldent! I don't know a person alive who has done otherwise. You, me, and everyone does it.