Capital in the 21st Century

[Black_Dragon43]

@Speed112 and @Black_Dragon43 summed it up perfectly.

Also, @Black_Dragon43 you are from Eastern Europe right?

I assume you know more about communism and/or socialism than most people on this forum? And it is not a good opinion?

Strangely enough, @beswaax is ALSO from Eastern Europe...

But yes, communism was horrible. We are still feeling its effects today, where corruption is just as rampant in our political system and amongst bureaucrats because that's what they learned in communism. Communism really destroys the natural morality that people have, and turns everyone very nuclear and selfish - caring just about themselves and their families. People learn that whoever has the power must be respected, by virtue of them having access to brute force, and whoever doesn't have the power can be treated like shit.

Also, the critical voice of having to obey others, follow the well-beaten path, fear to strike out on your own, these are rampant over here, and will probably continue to be so until the generations change. I would say that communism was the worst thing that happened to Eastern European countries in the past 500 years, and the virus is still not out of the system.

Also envy... Man are people envious as F*ck here. If you have a new car, a new house or apartment, more property than others, and so on, everyone envies you and speaks behind your back. If you're successful, the crabs try to pull you back down to their level.

Whereas in other parts where the ethos of capitalism and freedom has flourished, people are not envious, because they know they can achieve the same through work and effort. They're inspired by your success.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Goldfels]

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Edit: Anything in particular you suggest to read?]

Literally anything by Milton Friedman. I would start with "Free to Choose". Heck, anything on mises.org, like @Tom H. said.

Side note for the communist/socialist in the thread: Profit is necessary for a business. If all the profit went to the execs (heck, or even to all the workers), the business could never expand. The revenue would never expand, and no more workers would be paid than are already working. This expansion also drives competition for wages ( i.e. "I could just go to the other guy! He's bigger and offers more benefits") which lift workers up as time goes on.

I could go on but I doubt someone who believes the future will be communistic has watched too much Star Trek to be reasoned with.

 

[Deleted78083]

In any way, 90% of the content of this thread (including my posts) breaks the no-politics rule of the forum, so I suggest we end it here.

 

[Deleted70138]

Rothbard and Hoppe

Which of their books would you recommend?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[sonny_1080]

After looking into this more, I'd venture to say the problem with any argument like this is the fundamental interpretation of capitalism.

If we can reduce it down to its basic definition (I like @Kak 's) - a win-win voluntary value exchange, than it is the only economic system that does not use force.

I've found that capitalism has been criminalized because people (especially the younger generation) have associated mass inequality, slavery, exploitation, child labor, and all these other abhorrent things that have nothing to do with capitalism.

The way I'm beginning to see it, is any State with taxes is not a true capitalist economy. If thats the case, then the US, although representing itself as capitalist, is far from it.

I found this after @Speed112 suggested it

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNd3cd0Bsr8

 

[Black_Dragon43]

If we can reduce it down to its basic definition (I like @Kak 's) - a win-win voluntary value exchange, than it is the only economic system that does not use force.

Yes, the problem is what is this "win-win"? Voluntary exchange (and dare I say even forceful exchange) functions in a certain sense as a win-win all the time. For example, X puts a gun to your head and demands your property, and you agree to exchange your property for your life.

How can ANY sort of exchange fail to be win-win? In the above case, you value your life, more than your property, so you accept the exchange.

So such a definition is tautologically true, and therefore useless. Any sort of imaginable exchange is voluntary - even when force is used. Where are these involuntary exchanges to be found?! If they're involuntary, they're not exchanges at all. Theft can be involuntary. You take my thing, I never agreed to it, but I never saw you take it. But that's not an exchange.

And the "gun to the head" is just an example. Even in capitalism I can pin you down, and try to extort money out of you. I know you broke the law, for example, and I call you up, and tell you "Now my friend, time to pay up, or this goes public... what do you want to do?" It's a win-win voluntary exchange... is that good?

 

[sonny_1080]

Yes, the problem is what is this "win-win"? Voluntary exchange (and dare I say even forceful exchange) functions in a certain sense as a win-win all the time. For example, X puts a gun to your head and demands your property, and you agree to exchange your property for your life.

How can ANY sort of exchange fail to be win-win? In the above case, you value your life, more than your property, so you accept the exchange.

So such a definition is tautologically true, and therefore useless. Any sort of imaginable exchange is voluntary - even when force is used. Where are these involuntary exchanges to be found?! If they're involuntary, they're not exchanges at all. Theft can be involuntary. You take my thing, I never agreed to it, but I never saw you take it. But that's not an exchange.

And the "gun to the head" is just an example. Even in capitalism I can pin you down, and try to extort money out of you. I know you broke the law, for example, and I call you up, and tell you "Now my friend, time to pay up, or this goes public... what do you want to do?" It's a win-win voluntary exchange... is that good?

This is my point. We disagree on the fundamental interpretation of the words we are using.

If voluntary is implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion, then "gun to head" theft and extortion are all examples of what capitalism is NOT.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

If voluntary is implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion, then "gun to head" theft and extortion are all examples of what capitalism is NOT.

Right but this concept is only pushing the nebulousness of it further down the line. What counts as "external compulsion"? "Gun to your head" is external compulsion, but "you noticing a buying spree on the market, and therefore choosing to buy" is not? Well, why isn't it? In both cases an external event motivates you to act in a certain way. If it wasn't for that event, you wouldn't have acted. What makes one different from the other? In one case you value your life more than your property, and in the other you value the expected gain you'll make from joining the buying spree more than the stability you enjoyed by sitting on the sidelines.

So it's not at all clear if you being a poor, untrained and uneducated starving lad, and me hiring you for $1/hr is "external compulsion" or "voluntary choice". Where is that line drawn? In the "gun to your head" example, you accept the exchange. Same as you do here.

You could try to answer this question by appealing to the type of motivation that you have in either case. So for example in the "gun to the head" example, you're motivated to agree by fear, whereas in the "buying spree" example you're motivated by greed. And then we'd sort the underlying emotions from those which represented YOU (such as greed), and those which are involuntary and forced upon you (such as fear). But that only ties you up even more. For example: if there is a rush in the market and everyone is selling, prices are collapsing, and you get afraid and sell at rock bottom prices when a certain individual comes and makes the proposal to you, weren't you driven by fear? So does that mean the sale was forced and not voluntary?

 

[sonny_1080]

Right but this concept is only pushing the nebulousness of it further down the line. What counts as "external compulsion"? "Gun to your head" is external compulsion, but "you noticing a buying spree on the market, and therefore choosing to buy" is not? Well, why isn't it? In both cases an external event motivates you to act in a certain way. If it wasn't for that event, you wouldn't have acted. What makes one different from the other? In one case you value your life more than your property, and in the other you value the expected gain you'll make from joining the buying spree more than the stability you enjoyed by sitting on the sidelines.

So it's not at all clear if you being a poor, untrained and uneducated starving lad, and me hiring you for $1/hr is "external compulsion" or "voluntary choice". Where is that line drawn?

In my decision to voluntarily accept that offer... or not.

Incentive is one thing. Force is something else. The difference lies in tastes/preferences that influence my utility.

For example, I know plenty of people that would rather work at a $13/hr. job and are perfectly ok with the barely getting by. In fact, they prefer it.

So with your example, I'm not sure it applies because the causology of my decision to act is based on my hunger... and spending an hour of my time for $1 is not enough incentive for me to work for you.

Now if you put a gun to my head it becomes slavery.

[Edit: I know you understand what I'm saying, but you're obviously trying to steer this conversation in a certain direction. I'm not sure where you're going, so for the sake of time stop asking me leading questions and just say what you're trying to get to.]

 

[Black_Dragon43]

So with your example, I'm not sure it applies because the causology of my decision to act is based on my hunger... and spending an hour of my time for $1 is not enough incentive for me to work for you.

Now if you put a gun to my head it becomes slavery.

I agree that it becomes slavery, but the whole point of the exercise is where you'll draw the line. Because fundamentally the two exchanges don't have any differentiator. Except that you find one distasteful and immoral, and you don't find the other distasteful and immoral. So if that's the only differentiator here, then it's not very helpful because those feelings of distaste or not are subjective and different for everyone. So not a very effective objective criteria.

Now, take a look at the example you gave. If a gun is put to your head, you do have an incentive to give up your property. The desire to live. And if a $1/hr job is offered to you and you're starving and can't get another job, you do have an incentive to take it. The desire for food. In both cases you have the option to refuse the incentive given. Why do you label one "force" and the other "incentive"? What's the difference between the two fundamentally?

You can't really point to it, except to tell me that in one case you feel that it would be something forced upon you and involuntary. One arouses a certain resentment in you, and sense that it's not just. All subjective differences. Maybe there are people for whom it doesn't arouse such resentments. Does it therefore follow that putting a gun to THEIR head results in a voluntary exchange?

You could at this point say, well, an exchange is voluntary if the incentive is not caused by the other party of the exchange. The incentive to give off my property in exchange for my life is caused by the other party to the exchange putting a gun to my head. Whereas my hunger, in the other case, is not caused by the other party. But that doesn't solve it either! Because what if you're in the desert, in the middle of nowhere, and you're dying of thirst, and you come upon me, and I have water. And I tell you, friend, look how things are. You need to surrender me all your fortune in exchange for this water bottle. That is my price. Is that a voluntary exchange, or not? Is that an incentive, or force? I'm not the cause of your thirst in this case either, but many would say that I am taking advantage of you.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Guest-5ty5s4]

I've found that capitalism has been criminalized because people (especially the younger generation) have associated mass inequality, slavery, exploitation, child labor, and all these other abhorrent things that have nothing to do with capitalism.

Yes, because that is exactly what is taught on the news and in schools to children: capitalism is taught as if it is synonymous with crime, which is false. Bernie Madoff ran a scam, not a business.

The way I'm beginning to see it, is any State with taxes is not a true capitalist economy. If thats the case, then the US, although representing itself as capitalist, is far from it.

This is a bit unrealistic.

I'm not a fan of taxes, but a country can be capitalist and still have some taxes. Of course I want them as low as we can go, like almost zero. That requires vast elimination of waste.

But if you're at 40% of income going to taxes, cutting down to 20% is pretty damn good. Also helps the economy.

Like freedom, socialism/capitalism is a sliding scale from 0 % to 100 % .

It is not an on/off switch.

 

[Kak]

Taxes are just the price you pay to not be murdered for not paying taxes.

Per @Black_Dragon43 ‘s point that still constitutes a voluntary exchange, because I voluntarily chose not to be murdered is interesting, and a decent point, but it is still against my will.

Given the choice between paying taxes and not paying taxes, with no threat of force, I wouldn’t, and nor would any sane person. They would instead, reinvest, spend it supporting the works of producer’s that earned their business, and support causes that more closely align with their beliefs.

The only way the government would get money voluntarily is if it outcompetes other causes or value that an individual would have otherwise supported or purchased. Unlikely unless they have Stockholm syndrome.

 

[Raoul Duke]

@Speed112 and @Black_Dragon43 summed it up perfectly.

Also, @Black_Dragon43 you are from Eastern Europe right?

I assume you know more about communism and/or socialism than most people on this forum? And it is not a good opinion?

To be fair though. In the minds of the retarded folks here on that particular side of the fence. Those Europe countries aren't doing it right!

They could do it better.... And the way that it was intended....

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Black_Dragon43]

Per @Black_Dragon43 ‘s point that still constitutes a voluntary exchange, because I voluntarily chose not to be murdered is interesting, and a decent point, but it is still against my will.

Well, don’t you make choices by means of your will? If you do, then your choice can’t be against your will per se, in the moment when you make it. What you mean (and which you explain below) is that you’d prefer that there was no gun to your head and in that situation you’d do something else with your money.

But that’s not saying much... the starving, uneducated dude who can’t find a job except the job I offer him at $1/hr would also prefer that the situation were not so. So is he therefore forced to take my offer just because if the situation was different, he’d prefer not to, much like how you’re forced to pay your taxes even though you’d prefer not to if the situation was different?

The concepts at the basis of libertarian theory, are imo incoherent which is why Im not a libertarian. It’s not sufficiently rigorous, and I’ve read a lot of libertarian theory. For example, I find Ayn Rand childish.

Im a conservative, I think government should be as small as possible, and its actions restricted to those that are absolutely necessary. At the same time, just like Putin believes that corruption is not a defect, but a feature of the Russian political system, so too I believe that government is a necessity, and not something to be completely eliminated (contrary to libertarians). So I think coercion has a place in society - namely to defend those who can’t defend themselves, guarantee property rights, e. That’s why for example I take a pro life position in the abortion debate.

At the same time, I agree with the libertarian desire of getting government out of economics as much as possible. No minimum wage, no artificial prices, minimal or maybe even no taxes etc.

The system I come closest to as an ideal is Distributism (even there I have disagreements tho), which is much like capitalism, except that the rules are set to encourage the maximum number of producers, rather than concentrations of the means of production in a few hands (which is NOT a feature of capitalism, but a feature of the marriage between corporations and government which prevents competition). And obviously opposite to communism, because in communism the means of production are collectively owned, which is even worse than having them concentrated in a few hands.

 

[Tom H.]

Which of their books would you recommend?

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market | Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard's great treatise Man, Economy, and State and its complementary text Power and Market, are here combined into a single edition as they were written to be.

mises.org

A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Here is Hans Hoppe's first treatise in English — actually his first book in English — and the one that put him on the map as a social thinker and economist to watch. He argued that there are only two possible archetypes in economic affairs: socialism and capitalism.

mises.org

If you read and understand those two books your will know a lot.

---

@Black_Dragon43 brings up an interesting point that is worth discussing, though I won't try to get I into it too much right now, I don't have the brain power at the moment.

My first thought, though, is to carry the argument to the far end of the spectrum: in a Robinson Crusoe scenario, I am free from coercion, except that I am still coerced by nature to be productive or I will starve.

What is different between the gun to head survival scenario and the alone in the wilderness survival scenario?

I have some ideas both for differences and similarities, but I'll leave it for now, maybe someone else can fill in some of those details.

It's also important to determine if there is a distinction between civil society and the jungle. Most libertarians/anarcho-capitalists favor law and order, and civil society. But maybe it's all b.s. at the end of the day and all that matters is survival. A traditional take on this is "natural rights", but I think Hoppe's formulation of "argumentation ethics" is more solid.

Argumentation ethics - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought

wiki.mises.org

I think the summary of @Black_Dragon43's argument is: "is competition for scarce resources in itself a form of coercion, rendering the idea of voluntary exchange non-sensical?"

 

[StrikingViper69]

Force is when someone makes you do something.

A lack of options is not "force", it's unfortunate (or irresponsible depending on the situation).

The man with no skills taking a $1/hour job is not being forced to do so, he has a shitty life and doesn't have any options but to do so.

The argument that a lack of options constitutes force is like saying true freedom isn't possible because we are all "forced" to breath air.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Deleted74338]

That is your opinion and this is fine.

Enlighten me though: what the hell are you doing on this forum?

Planning to open a community farm? A gulag?

I can't try to thrive in a capitalist system? I have goals in life and I want to achieve my idea of freedom.

What is even so funny about a gulag? That's all a communist knows right??? I could say the same shit about ex imperialist countries and slavery in capitalist countries. Which was worse than freaking gulags.

Most answers here are so dumb I can't believe it. I thought this forum was full of open minded intelligent people.
When socialism fails, it's socialism's fault. i.e. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea . When capitalism fails, it's poor people's fault. i.e. Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean.

You guys associate communism with totalitarianism and corruption, why can't the same be said about capitalism? Look at Africa, its extremely corrupt and poor, why hasn't capitalism made them rich yet? So by that logic capitalism = poverty & corruption.

Africa and most of South America are way worse off than any socialist country like Cuba or Venezuela, considering that most of these socialist countries are under heavy sanctions.

The problem with socialism is that it presupposes that human nature is inherently good, and the bureaucrats in power will let everyone get what they deserve. Of course, the real truth, is that the bureaucrats DECIDE what each person deserves, in practice. How else could it be? Who else would decide?

It comes back to people. So the only difference would be that in socialism and communism, who has what would be decided based on SOCIAL STATUS and FORCE. Is that the world we want to live in? I doubt it. I much prefer the dog eat dog world of capitalism, where at least you can EARN your way up to whatever you have, and your property is respected, and you don't have to bow down your head to government bureaucrats who can walk into your property and confiscate it, or "put the lock on it".

THIS is what socialism looks like in practice:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Kk7kobMQY&ab_channel=Akhmedabou-geiab


And THIS is what happens with the money "for the poor":

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_tFSWZXKN0&ab_channel=AlexeiNavalny

That's an example of our current capitalist system, not communism.

 

[Black_Dragon43]

I can't try to thrive in a capitalist system? I have goals in life and I want to achieve my idea of freedom.

What is even so funny about a gulag? That's all a communist knows right??? I could say the same shit about ex imperialist countries and slavery in capitalist countries. Which was worse than freaking gulags.

Most answers here are so dumb I can't believe it. I thought this forum was full of open minded intelligent people.
When socialism fails, it's socialism's fault. i.e. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea . When capitalism fails, it's poor people's fault. i.e. Africa, Central America, and the Caribbean.

You guys associate communism with totalitarianism and corruption, why can't the same be said about capitalism? Look at Africa, its extremely corrupt and poor, why hasn't capitalism made them rich yet? So by that logic capitalism = poverty & corruption.

Africa and most of South America are way worse off than any socialist country like Cuba or Venezuela, considering that most of these socialist countries are under heavy sanctions.


That's an example of our current capitalist system, not communism.

I think most people here would be happy to have a discussion. What are your arguments though? Why prefer socialism/communism over capitalism? If you want to carry on this discussion, I think you should at least make an effort to make some arguments.

As for the examples I provided, that is not capitalism. Capitalism means that government stays out of the economy, with a few exceptions. In the videos I have provided, you see the Russian Tsar in action in the market, demanding things out of private businesses, or else...

That's not capitalism at all.

Also, I don't think wealth accumulation is an evil, do you? I don't think it's an evil that 1% of the world owns 99% of the wealth. I don't think a uniform distribution of wealth is "good". I think people should inherit part of the value they provide to the world. If they provide tons of value, they should be rich. That to me is nothing but fairness. Sure, fairness is tough. You're a lazy bum, you're not gonna get much. But it's just the way it is.

 

[spreng]

We do live in a state where a great amount of wealth has been earned without providing value, mainly through complex financial instruments meant to deceive and manipulate. Additionally, generations born into wealth see that wealth multiply without lifting a finger, which can be quite frustrating. In an ideal world, we will start to see more value-creating businesses and less hedge fund businesses. I think this is hard for anyone older than 35 to understand because America was very prosperous and righteous in its capitalist state when the older generations grew up.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[hellolin]

The point was never about capitalism vs socialism, the point is always about top down approach vs bottom up approach. Today we have a world wide capitalism running in a top down, soviet style fashion, and how does that work? If someone can invent some kind of tech that enables bottom up socialism, then it will probably still be better than any kind of top down system by quite a bit.