What is the goal of capitalism?

[Mexicano]

Its goal is to use the means of production to produce.

Hmm... that seems like the goal of any economic system.
Let me give a try with the most common systems.

Slavery... give a comfortable life to free people; use enemy states as a source of cheap labour.
Feudalism... Provide goods for the lord, wariors and king.
Socialism... Distribute wealth in an equitable manner, independently of the market value of labor.
Capitalism... Increase development and production through competition and profit maximization.

I've skipped communism, that is just a pipe dream with a flawed principle: to each according to its needs, from each according to its capacity. A family made of 1 husband 2 wives and 20 children has a lot more needs than a couple with no kids. So the first family will get 10 times the income of the second one because it has more "needs"...

 

[Mexicano]

Now the sellers have a total of $750,000 and the buyers have the shares.
If shares continue to go up more exchanges can happen but during this process nothing gets produced at all.

And no capital gets destroyed.

Production is a time-dependent function.
If all farmers decided to suspeend all capital expenditure during one year and use that money to invest in cryptocurrency or derivatives or stock options, their capital would increase in average 6% for the next year , but that would create a world famine as the actual food production would drop without the much needed capital investment to make fields productive.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is just a philosophical question. Is there a goal for capitalism at all? Is it to maximize personal liberty or production? or is it to maximize well being?

There is no goal for capitalism per se. Capitalism is the means by which free people achieve individual goals whether as short term as paying the rent or making the car payment to becoming independently wealthy. And by each person working for his own interests, everybody contributes to the benefit of everybody else doing the same so that all can prosper.

 

[Ringo]

This is just a philosophical question. Is there a goal for capitalism at all?

Profit.
"... With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged. If turbulence and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the slave-trade have amply proved all that is here stated…"
Thomas Joseph Dunning

 

[otto105]

Hmm... that seems like the goal of any economic system.
Let me give a try with the most common systems.

Slavery... give a comfortable life to free people; use enemy states as a source of cheap labour.
Feudalism... Provide goods for the lord, wariors and king.
Socialism... Distribute wealth in an equitable manner, independently of the market value of labor.
Capitalism... Increase development and production through competition and profit maximization.

I've skipped communism, that is just a pipe dream with a flawed principle: to each according to its needs, from each according to its capacity. A family made of 1 husband 2 wives and 20 children has a lot more needs than a couple with no kids. So the first family will get 10 times the income of the second one because it has more "needs"...

Wow, you post that using a digital crayon?

 

[otto105]

There is no goal for capitalism per se. Capitalism is the means by which free people achieve individual goals whether as short term as paying the rent or making the car payment to becoming independently wealthy. And by each person working for his own interests, everybody contributes to the benefit of everybody else doing the same so that all can prosper.

Creating your own utopia are ya.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Production is a time-dependent function.
If all farmers decided to suspeend all capital expenditure during one year and use that money to invest in cryptocurrency or derivatives or stock options, their capital would increase in average 6% for the next year , but that would create a world famine as the actual food production would drop without the much needed capital investment to make fields productive.

If all farmers decided to suspeend all capital expenditure during one year and use that money to invest in cryptocurrency or derivatives or stock options, their capital would increase in average 6% for the next year ,

Pulling numbers out of your ass again?

 

[Foxfyre]

Creating your own utopia are ya.

Is that what you got out of my post? What is it that creates such reading disability and tunnel vision in the left?

 

[Mexicano]

There is no goal for capitalism per se. Capitalism is the means by which free people achieve individual goals whether as short term as paying the rent or making the car payment to becoming independently wealthy. And by each person working for his own interests, everybody contributes to the benefit of everybody else doing the same so that all can prosper.

A big chunk of the economy is not driven by individual choice, but also by corporate choices and interests. Firms make choices that are not always aligned with the well-being of individuals. Alas sometimes they have opposing interests.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A big chunk of the economy is not driven by individual choice, but also by corporate choices and interests. Firms make choices that are not always aligned with the well-being of individuals. Alas sometimes they have opposing interests.

Owners are allowed to do that.

 

[task0778]

Production is a time-dependent function.
If all farmers decided to suspend all capital expenditure during one year and use that money to invest in cryptocurrency or derivatives or stock options, their capital would increase in average 6% for the next year , but that would create a world famine as the actual food production would drop without the much needed capital investment to make fields productive.

Your scenario is somewhat flawed, and a little bit overstated. Let's tone it down a bit and take a longer view, because production is NOT necessarily time-dependent. First of all, people tend to look at the largest corporations as the drivers of the whole shebang, which they ain't. Something like 70% of all businesses out there are small ones that are not going to invest their profits in crypto and such. They're going to invest it whatever it takes to improve their profitability, no? As in right effing now. And if Big Biz doesn't see the immediate value in expansion or upgrades then they'll find other non-productive ways to make more money until the situation changes.

That said, there is a lot of money going into investments that do not increase productivity today, I think it's fair to say that. It seems to me that big money investors are going to put their money into situations that they think will return the biggest bang for the buck, which may or may not be immediately productive but will be whenever they eventually realize whatever profit they make on a currently non-productive avenue. So, now a few years down the road when the economy changes and expansion/upgrades make financial sense, now they got more money than before to put it to work. My point is that some investments may not be productive now but over time will be or could be. Capitalism is like that, IF gov't gets out of the way.

 

[Mac-7]

Private capital accumulation a.k.a. Profits. The driving force and bottom line of capitalist production isn't the public good, meeting the needs of the consumer, charity, or patriotism, it's profits.

Profits make all the good things possible

Without profits generated by the private sector you have Cuba or north korea

 

[Foxfyre]

A big chunk of the economy is not driven by individual choice, but also by corporate choices and interests. Firms make choices that are not always aligned with the well-being of individuals. Alas sometimes they have opposing interests.

It is not the job of corporations to address the well-being of individuals. It is the job of corporations to make profits. They do that by providing products and services that people want and will buy and that in turn benefits all.

Now in truth, should the corporation engage in processes and practices that directly harm people, then it is the government's job to intervene and require the corporation to correct that. Otherwise the government should be hands of off and the corporation will moderate itself because it has to keep its customers happy in order to make profits.

 

[Foxfyre]

A big chunk of the economy is not driven by individual choice, but also by corporate choices and interests. Firms make choices that are not always aligned with the well-being of individuals. Alas sometimes they have opposing interests.

Responding further to your comment, and thank you for keeping it civil and making a rational argument. I can't tell you how refreshing that is.

Those 'corporate choices and interests' are exactly what drives a healthy economy. By providing products and services that people will buy and increase the corporate profits, the corporation provides jobs to those who procure the products or components for products, stock, advertise, sell the products, maintain the facilities. And those benefits extend far beyond the corporation to those who provide the raw materials, components, assembly, transportation etc. of everything that goes into the products or services the corporation ultimately sells to the general public. It all factors into a healthy, growing free market economy in which everyone has a chance to prosper more.

And every time a corporation fails to offer sufficient choices to their customers, it gives opportunity for some bright entrepreneur who recognized that to start his/her own business that provides products the people want and can't get anywhere else.

 

[Mexicano]

Responding further to your comment, and thank you for keeping it civil and making a rational argument. I can't tell you how refreshing that is.

Those 'corporate choices and interests' are exactly what drives a healthy economy. By providing products and services that people will buy and increase the corporate profits, the corporation provides jobs to those who procure the products or components for products, stock, advertise, sell the products, maintain the facilities. And those benefits extend far beyond the corporation to those who provide the raw materials, components, assembly, transportation etc. of everything that goes into the products or services the corporation ultimately sells to the general public. It all factors into a healthy, growing free market economy in which everyone has a chance to prosper more.

And every time a corporation fails to offer sufficient choices to their customers, it gives opportunity for some bright entrepreneur who recognized that to start his/her own business that provides products the people want and can't get anywhere else.

I undrestand your point. But my point is that sometimes individual choices will be affected by publicity or convenience. There was a time when smoking was potrayed as a healthy habit ( in spite of overwhelming evidence of the opposite), then we have the case of junk food and the price spiral of healthcare ( some have argued the spiral can be cut down by eliminating medicaid and medicare; I suspect it wouldn't work either, but if it wasn't for the terrible consequences I would say: ok give it a try and let's see what happens). Then we have lobbying groups. Large financial institutions have been very apt at reducing oversight and securing rescues.
For all of the above reasons I think the ideal capitalism is good, but in practice it has a lot of caveats.
PD. Thanks for keeping it civil too. I may not agree with you , but I am willing to hear your point of view and point out why I disagree.

 

[otto105]

Is that what you got out of my post? What is it that creates such reading disability and tunnel vision in the left?

Hilarious

Your post reads as a fascist pining about utopia.

If all people act just in their own individual interest it would be chaos like Somalia.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Profits make all the good things possible

Without profits generated by the private sector you have Cuba or north korea

Under capitalism yes, you need profits or there's no production, wages, or purchases. You also need a government to provide a medium of exchange, property rights, and the enforcement of contracts.

Cuba and North Korea are irrelevant. Those two countries are heavily sanctioned and under the constant threat of war, hence they've centralized power and are authoritarian regimes. You don't have the ideological luxury of criticizing their economies until you lift sanctions. Any ship that ports in Cuba can't port in US territory for 180 days. Any company that does business in Cuba, can't do business in the US and in several European countries. Lift the sanctions.

 

[otto105]

Under capitalism yes, you need profits or there's no production, wages, or purchases. You also need a government to provide a medium of exchange, property rights, and the enforcement of contracts.

Cuba and North Korea are irrelevant. Those two countries are heavily sanctioned and under the constant threat of war, hence they've centralized power and are authoritarian regimes. You don't have the ideological luxury of criticizing their economies until you lift sanctions. Any ship that ports in Cuba can't port in US territory for 180 days. Any company that does business in Cuba, can't do business in the US and in several European countries. Lift the sanctions.

Good luck posting facts to a magat.

 

[Cougarbear]

"The Invisible Hand" Is the One Picking Your Pocket

There is a Third Way. Both Capitalism and Socialism are products of a spoiled, bossy, and decadent hereditary ruling class. Obviously, the employees create the value of the investment, so only they should share in the profits, treating the capitalization as a fixed expense like a bank loan. But the toxic plutocracy controls all thoughts on economics.

There are no employees without employers and leadership. When people believe they own something when in debt to what they purchased is not capitalism. The right to own your own property is capitalism and freedom. Without capitalism there is no true freedom.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Owners are allowed to do that.

To the extent that society allows it, corporations can conduct business to the detriment of the public.