Pour through your libertarian leaflets for a thousand years and you'll not find a connection between capitalism and ownership of a damned computer.

A) Why, 'cuz you sez so? What possibly could give your readers even the slightest indication that you've ever even seen such a thing, let alone many of them?

YOUR YOUR YOUR
I said YOUR leaflets

The only place you'd find libertarian literature around here would be in an outhouse as emergency toiletpaper.
sheesh

Rush, I have mentioned Marx as a starting point, you have vaguely mentioned what is extensively available in the economic and philosophic literature but not cited any sources.

Hev, again, I don't know what to tell you. You don't need me to quote someone who agrees with me to refute the point.

I noted a fundamental principle of a well-established concept, and I gave you the reasons why that principle is fundamental. If you disagree, say so. "You're wrong, Rush. Ownership isn't a fundamental and defining part of capitalism because..." or "Rush, capitalist isn't defined as a supporter of capitalism because..." and present your reasons.

You could even use Marx as your starting point if you wish, say, "Well, Marx said..." and throw that in there if you wish. I didn't use him because he died, what, 130 or so years ago, and had no idea about modern economics. This is a discussion of ideas, not a battle of the links.

Well, as I have said in an earlier post, I thought that you had an interesting definition of capitalism which I had not come across before.

What I would think would be really helpful was if you could show me some of the economic and philosophical literature that supports your thinking.

I suppose what I am looking for is your theoretical basis.

---

Came across this article on the selling off of Puget Sound Energy to group of investors from Canada and Australia when is this for personal profit going to stop. Selling off A energy company with total disregard of peoples lives.

State regulators OK sale of PSE to investors

Are you referring to the possibility that the transaction was inspired by the investors' desire to gain access to the employees' retirement trusts? Something akin to corporate raiding and trickle down . . . or was there something more specific you haven't addressed such as breaking up PSE to keep the profitable parts and dumping the zero-return-on-maintenance bits? Did the article identify the members of this investment group - a term often used to mask identities for one reason or another? Something like Citi and JP Morgan orchestrating the downfall of Enron. Maybe an investment group shielding themselves from public sensitivities about the use of TARP funds. No doubt the State Regulators asked these questions and kept a record of responses possibly prior to approval. This is not intended as a hostile comment, I'm just looking for some specific substance which the authors of the article you reference should have included as a "meets-expectations" for investigative journalism. Please forward these questions back to them if you want, I'd like to know as well. Thank you for your post.

---

I see where you are getting confused.
You are blending the capitalist system, capitalists and those forced to live within the system into a single entity.

Of course I'm not, because I'm just following the flow of this discussion.

In this thread you yourself first used the term, "capitalist," in 851997.

You then followed that with the use of the term "capital" when quoting Lincoln in 863293.

You followed that with "capitalist" again with when you asked how ownership applied in 863735.

And finally, you followed that with the use of "capitalism" when you asked how ownership applied in 863735.

The point being that the concept that ownership is a fundamental part of capital, capitalism, and capitalist still remains. And no one, not one soul, is "forced" to live in a capitalist system. By virtue of the fact that they own themselves and their labor, they are not forced at all to live like that. Nike cannot make you work for it. Neither can GM. Neither can the dwindling UAW, who frankly, ought to get off their asses and labor themselves up some cars and sell them. Because that's all they need right? Lots of labor. Labor labor labor. What are they waiting for, especially as they don't seem to be "wage slaves" to ANYONE anymore. Yep, they should be laborin' up some cars.

The capitalists are the ones who created this system that is, not a big suprise, reliant upon capitalists.

It doesn't matter what they do because you are free to participate or not and you do not have any right to control their free choices anymore than they control yours.

The capitalist system is structured to focus the main flow of capital toward the few at the top of the food chain.

How, exactly is this true? It is true 'cuz yew jest happened to sez so? I mean, you didn't have to buy that computer at all. But you did. You WILLINGLY gave your capital to whoever made it, and they did with that capital what they wished. They are free to do that, just as you are.

It's a hell of a deal if you are one of the controllers.

And yet, Nike doesn't control you. GM doesn't control it's workers. It didn't even control Lee Iaococca.

Sadly, the vast majority are not now, nor ever will be at the top of the food chain...

Of course not. That will never, ever happen, because it's not how reality works. People are different. Some are Harder. Faster. Better. Stronger. Some make better bread. Others make better butter. Or bigger chickens. Or on and on and on and on ad infinitum. Some will inherit. Some will invest in better bread production. Some will create eBay. Or Google. Some will wallow in filth.

...and even though we all work for money and use that money to facilitate exchanges of goods and services it doesn't make us a capitalist.

Then you're just being silly. It's the default position of reality because the gov't or some commune cannot legislate prosperity or potatoes into existence. Humans must use their labor to create such things. You willingly, actively, happily participate in the very system you decry, even as you clearly demonstrate how little you understand the world around you. You seek the price you're willing to pay for the reasons you're willing to pay it for the things you value and are important to you. You do it because you WANT to, because it makes your life easier and better, and means you can provide more for your family. That's simply being a capitalist, in a capitalist system, that, in the modern age, is severely hampered by regulation that drives costs up.

To come full circle, the point still stands: You take advantage of the free market to sell your labor. You take advantage of the free market to buy the goods and services you wish to buy. Your computer is the epitome of capitalism and the free market. As labor has become so expensive in North America, nearly every bit of that computer, except final assembly (maybe) was created taking advantage of the free market, using cheaper labor in other parts of the world to keep prices down. You take advantage of the division of labor so that you do not have to produce ~everything~ you need by yourself. You take part in the process, and you accept and endorse the entire process by participating in it, willingly.

Your spoken opinions about the matter aren't of any worth. The market doesn't care what you think, or feel, the market is just a concept. One that you either participate in, or not. But even your non-participation is a sort of participation in the market, your unwillingness to buy helps drive prices, and therefore costs, down. Though you decry the system, you choose to live it.

Again, that makes you a capitalist in nearly every sense of the word. No you aren't a millionaire. I get that.

I think the term "wage slave of the capitalists" would be more accurate.

Nope, because you don't have to participate. You aren't forced to work for GM. You don't. You don't work for Nike. Or Bill Gates. As noted above, look at all those UAW laborers, they aren't slavin' to anyone. Make your butter. Make bread. Make your own Harley. Trade for whatever you want with whoever you wish.

It ain't so just because I says so...it just is.

Heh. Explain to us once again how "ownership" has no relationship to capitalism...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Well, as I have said in an earlier post, I thought that you had an interesting definition of capitalism which I had not come across before.

What I would think would be really helpful was if you could show me some of the economic and philosophical literature that supports your thinking.

I suppose what I am looking for is your theoretical basis.

Have at it:

Hayek, Friedrich: The Road to Serfdom, or Socialism, or The Theory of Money and Credit.

Friedman, Milton: A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960 or Capitalism and Freedom

von Mises, Ludwig, Human Action, probably any version.

Rothbard, Murray: Man, Economy, and State, or Power and Market or The Ethics of Liberty, or For a New Liberty.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush
You keep equating everything we do and everything we own to capitalism.
People function as employees and exercise their ownership rights in social democracies around the world without being a part of the capitalist system as it exists in America today.

Your 'survival of the fittest' mindset is a product of that economic system.
There are economic systems that are much more egalitarian and in surveys, those citizens are much happier with their lives than we in North America are.

So once again, living and working for wages in a capitalist economy does not automatically make all citizens within that system a capitalist.

This is getting old but you seem to be enjoying it.

Rush
You keep equating everything we do and everything we own to capitalism.

That's because it is the nature of reality. Human beings cannot be born and left on a rock and survive in the universe like lichens. They must act and do to survive. Initially, they must invest their labor in themselves and their ownership of that labor is fundamental to existence--or else they are slaves. That some people are better at that than others, or were luckier than others, or anything else (other than force or fraud) that accounts for the differences in source and amount of income, does not change that simple fact because the gov't, or some commune, cannot legislate your computer into existence.

People function as employees and exercise their ownership rights in social democracies around the world without being a part of the capitalist system as it exists in America today.

Sure. But but at the basis of their system is capitalism. Period. Because they go out and sell their labor to whomever they wish. Because they have "ownership rights" in their labor and themselves. They sell their labor willingly because they choose to live instead of just sitting around and dying. That they are socialist countries, or social democracies, or communist countries simply goes to how much of that labor is taken from them, by force.

But again, it is still capitalism that sits at the very heart of those societies. Hell, where do you think Cuba gets all that health care from? Cuba? HA! The massive, multi-billion dollar Cuban pharmaceutical companies? Oh, right, there aren't any. Does Raul proclaim that there will be Vancomycin and it appears? No. Does the Cuban People's Department of Democratic Pharmaceuticals produce it from thin air? Guess. No. They buy what they need (99.999% of what they have) from private companies and individuals, in other words, they are capitalists because they participate in the capitalist system. Willingly.

Sure. They get taxed to death. The gov't takes most of what they earn and destroys it. Tells them they get their healthcare for "free." Tells them they're sooooo much better off. And that they're all socialists or whatever. But the point remains. They are capitalists in a capitalist system, by nature of the fact that capitalism is what provides everything they need, and by nature of the fact that they willingly participate in doing so.

Your 'survival of the fittest' mindset is a product of that economic system.
There are economic systems that are much more egalitarian and in surveys, those citizens are much happier with their lives than we in North America are.

Maybe. So what? That doesn't change the point I've made. It's odd that as happy as you say they are, the whole world isn't trying to move there (even you aren't) and it is trying to move here.

So once again, living and working for wages in a capitalist economy does not automatically make all citizens within that system a capitalist.

Ah, yes, your usual M.O., repeat your conclusion once again, without any reasoning whatsoever, as if, this time, this time, I mean it, THIS TIME, it will miraculously become clear to all of your readers. That you think people may be happier in other places doesn't support your opinion. That lots of them are happy to live in what they call "social democracies" doesn't support your opinion either. Those are both unrelated to the idea that they are capitalists at heart and that they willingly take advantage of the capitalist system.

All of those citizens are in essence capitalists for the reasons provided above. Even if they actually live on a commune and live like good socialists. Well, if they use the free market to obtain what they cannot provide for themselves. And they all do.

This is getting old but you seem to be enjoying it.

It's just a discussion. Keeps me on my toes.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Pour through your libertarian leaflets for a thousand years and you'll not find a connection between capitalism and ownership of a damned computer.

A) Why, 'cuz you sez so? What possibly could give your readers even the slightest indication that you've ever even seen such a thing, let alone many of them?

YOUR YOUR YOUR
I said YOUR leaflets

The point still remains. What possibly could give your readers even the slightest indication that you've ever even seen such a thing, let alone many of them, let alone MY MY MY, I mean MY leaflets? How could you possibly know what would be in them?

The only place you'd find libertarian literature around here would be in an outhouse as emergency toiletpaper.
sheesh

Which feeds back to my original point: you have no idea what you are posting about.

Why? Because there is a deep and inseparable connection between "connection between capitalism and ownership of a damned computer." Because libertarian literature is filled with the connection between capitalism and ownership.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Have at it:

Hayek, Friedrich: The Road to Serfdom, or Socialism, or The Theory of Money and Credit.

Friedman, Milton: A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960 or Capitalism and Freedom

von Mises, Ludwig, Human Action, probably any version.

Rothbard, Murray: Man, Economy, and State, or Power and Market or The Ethics of Liberty, or For a New Liberty.

Thank you Rush, I'll be back.

---

People function as employees and exercise their ownership rights in social democracies around the world without being a part of the capitalist system as it exists in America today.

Sure. But but at the basis of their system is capitalism. Period. Because they go out and sell their labor to whomever they wish. Because they have "ownership rights" in their labor and themselves. They sell their labor willingly because they choose to live instead of just sitting around and dying. That they are socialist countries, or social democracies, or communist countries simply goes to how much of that labor is taken from them, by force.

study something please, that is the same when people gather berrys and change food and stuff, that is not capitalism ( nor they are capitalist)perse, still they own those stuff.

study something please, that is the same when people gather berrys and change food and stuff, that is not capitalism ( nor they are capitalist)perse, still they own those stuff.

In capitalism, you eat the berries that you pick (Enjoy the fruits of your own labor). In socialism, the berries you and everyone else picks get split up eqaually among everyone so that everyone has "his fair share". Despite the fact that not everyone helped pick the berries and some people might pick more than others.

---

they lived in small groups and they share them and everything, they sell some stuff to another tribe, if they had or wanted