Why I believe capitalism is morally wrong and evil...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
The increased demand for wool came from commoners, not Spanish noblemen.

Define common. I doubt English peasants made up the bulk of the market for woolen goods. My understanding is the primary market for British wool were the low countries, who turned them into clothing. (And I'm totally forgetting about the English cottage industry.) And while its definately true that this had been going on well before the introduction of Spanish silver into the mix, it really takes off after this point. That silver doesn't just stay in the hands of Spanish nobles, but finds its way into the hands of the middle classes, who can then begin buying goods themselves.

Furthermore, the availablity of Spanish silver produces a disaster for the peasantry of Europe (and England). Inflation begins, and in England the enclosures begin. One of the reasons there are so many mercenaries available in this period is the number of homeless peasants. This is also the period when vagrancy becomes a crime.

Slave owners will buy slaves up to the point where the amount of work they expect to gain is equal to the amount paid.

While I agree that the slaver traders profitted the most, slaver purchasers had to have some understanding of simple economics. You purchased slaves for the same reason you hire workers. Yes, there were vanity slaves who worked the houses, etc. But the most important sector of slavery were those slaves who were used inthe plantation system, and those purchasers bought slaves with a mind to making a profit. But off the top of my head I can't remember the percentage of slaves in the plantation system in the US versus simple work hands.

Most capital was provided by European banks.

Yes, but England was our largest creditor. By far and away the most important source of capital for American industry.

Slavery had relatively little effect on long term capital accumulation. Much of that capital was destroyed in the Civil War.

In the South, yes. And the South hasn't recovered from the Civil War yet. But the money they earned was invested in Northern and English banks, and that capital survived the war.

Then why were real incomes (ie adjusted for inflation) rising?

Uhm . . . let me get back to you on that.

[chequita guevara]

GePap, be nice to AS. He treats us with respect (even if he ribs us a little). Accord him the same courtesy, please. He's also a knowledgable and articulate debater, and we don't want to scare him off with rudeness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its sad to have to quible with a college person about basic language, but: the most important word is excessive, which means that some amount of desire is normal (not greed), and it becomes greed only after a certain point.

No **** Sherlock. I never once said that greed was the minimum subsistance level. That's you putting words into my mouth.

I DID say that greed is not just money. Why don't you just admit you were wrong on that argument?

Anything beyond subsistance is a product of greed, and in this society, just about everyone goes beyond subsistance.

A key difference, and why i don't trust many of your arguments. You, nor I, are students of human psychological needs, but certain persons are. I trust their findings, because I have done none, and I am smart enough to know that I don't know everything and I certainly can't judge others. For some reason, you think yourself above these professionals. Well, then point me towards a study, done scientifically, that points out that humans are just as well adjusted living in isolation and have no need of 'feeling good', and then I will consider your point. otherwise, this is just your OPINION, with no basis whatsoever in fact, and any claims you make towards it being factual are wrong.

So you believe in the healing power of chiropractors? After all they are professionals that are accredited. And assuming you have no medical background, I assume that you believe what they say as fact?

Just because someone is an 'expert' in a field, doesn't mean they are correct.

Information is coming out that deficiencies in feeling 'happy' are due to chemical imbalances rather than the amount of social interactions.

Imran, were did the money for these factories and so forth come from? You seem, for example, to totally ignore the fact that by the 17th century, a europe wide system of trade and finances had begun to spring up.

That is true that a Euro wide system of trade had sprung up, but the question is how much of the wealth is due to the slave system. One can assert that Spain and England (and to a lesser extent, France) did indeed benefit from the slave trade, but in purely agricultural pursuits. There is a reason that slavery was abolished when countries began to be more industrialized. Industrialization begun the spreading of capital-intensive industries, which did not require the vast amounts of labor before. Industralism flows DIRECTLY from capitalism. Capitalism is all about capital-intensive industries (they are more efficient than labor-intensive industry) and increased technology. Slavery does not really fit in the model, because it is labor-intensive in practice and is basically used for agriculture.

slave were not 'people'! Define slaves as commodities, like horses and cows, which also labor but are never going to earn a wage, and the system works just fine.

True capitalists were also abolishionists. Adam Smith (the Scottish one ) was a major proponent for abolishing slavery. People should be free to contract for services. The idea that slaves are merely property flys in the face of Capitalism's theorists. There is a reason that Liberalism (in the classical sense) created capitalism.

People do things because they are alive, and they have to meet basic individual needs,and imperative bilogical and species needs.

So why are we all not in caves, providing for ourselves with hunting and gathering? Because we decided it wasn't enough. We decided that it is better to build up civilizations, and when you move from the cave to the house, economics is all there is.

The ECONOMY is all there is. Just about every election turns on it. Why? Because economics decides who gets to eat and who doesn't. It decides who gets the luxuries and who doesn't.

I think this is one aspect where both che and I agree. Economics is the most important 'problem' for most people. How to feed yourself is a question of economics, first and foremost.

Yeah, briging back million of pound of gold, silver, more productive food crops, the creation of mass plantation, intruducion of new luzury goods, or the explotation of plentiful ones had NOTGHING, NOTHING AT ALL, to do with that growth. Yeah, right.

Gold, silver really had a great effect on Spain right? Mercantalism dictated they horde it and the Kingdom suffered from such inflationary pressure, it nearly killed them outright.

Luxury goods have little to nothing to do with growth. Who really cares about them except the richest of the rich?

Growth comes from technological advancement. Exploration did provide new areas for resources. The growth from exploration was jack compared to the growth Industrial Revolution.

Look at any graph of per capita income from BC up to present day. You'll find a pretty steady curve, that increases in gradation barely in 1500, but starting in 1850, the gradation turns almost vertical in growth.

Of course Capitalism benefited from past systems, but if you think any system DID NOT benefit from past systems you are lying your ass off. If Socialism ever comes into play it will not only benefit from capitalism, but slavery as well. Will that make it evil? No.. it'll be evil for other reasons .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
GePap, be nice to AS. He treats us with respect (even if he ribs us a little). Accord him the same courtesy, please. He's also a knowledgable and articulate debater, and we don't want to scare him off with rudeness.

Damn!

I wanted him to make AS mad, so he would have ripped him a new ******* and written a 20 page treatise closing the debate for good.

[Adam Smith]

I am at work and I don't have time (edit: right now )to get further into this discussion in any depth. A couple of quick comments:

Gepap:

I find it hard to believe that anyone who says they have studied history, could claim that the immense growth of the European economy from the 16th century on had Nothing to do at al with discovering and exploiting two brand new contients covinietly emptied by mass epidemics. (my emphasis)

I said nothing of the kind. I was responding to an argument you and others made. In your words,

it was new world species (gold, silver) that lead to a huge boom in capitol in europe. That was all (my emphasis) attained by slavery and genocide (the mines of Potosi were hell holes), as well as other agricultural commodities from the Americas, also gotten form slavery. Yeah, briging back million of pound of gold, silver, more productive food crops, the creation of mass plantation, intruducion of new luzury goods, or the explotation of plentiful ones had NOTGHING, NOTHING AT ALL, (your emphasis this time) to do with that growth. Yeah, right.

So I will repeat my question: If all capital accumulation is due to slavery and genocide, why do we continue to have substantial capital accumulation after these practices have largely stopped?

And here is some additional data on the importance of slavery to capital accumulation in the US.

Net US Capital Movements by Decade
Year
1841-1850 $20 mil outflow
1851-1860 $172 mil inflow
1861-1870 $876 mil inflow
1871-1880 $332 mil inflow
1881-1890 $1310 mil inflow

Source: J.R.T. Hughes, American Economic History, Table 20.7, p. 376.
Cotton was a primary means for the US to earn foreign exchange, but the market largely collapsed after 1860. Even if cotton was responsible for all of the capital inflow between 1851 and 1860, it would have accounted for less than 10 percent of the capital inflows from 1851 to 1890.

Chegitz:
Request for decorum noted and appreciated, even though my skin is pretty thick in these types of discussions.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Damn!

I wanted him to make AS mad, so he would have ripped him a new ******* and written a 20 page treatise closing the debate for good.

I almost wrote we don't want him to MtG us.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
So I will repeat my question: If all capital accumulation is due to slavery and genocide, why do we continue to have substantial capital accumulation after these practices have largely stopped?

Not all capital accumulation, but a critical burst of accumulated capital that allowed/created the conditions for capitalist take off. I want to say W.W. Rostow argued something similar to this (about periods of industrial take-off). That once this take off has begun, economic growth is pretty much sustained.

If hyper-exploitation provided the fuel for the initial burst of industrialization/capitalist growth, then we can say that capitalism is based on "slavery and genocide." But in this case, based means the original starting condtions rather than capitalism requires this condition at all times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I almost wrote we don't want him to MtG us.

If hyper-exploitation provided the fuel for the initial burst of industrialization/capitalist growth, then we can say that capitalism is based on "slavery and genocide." But in this case, based means the original starting condtions rather than capitalism requires this condition at all times.

As long as you make that distinction. A better terminology would be capitalism jumped off from "slavery and genocide". Based implies a constant underlying condition. We can say that Japanese capitalism after WW2 was not based on slavery and genocide (though the expansion of the economy was before WW2).

Of course you can also say that EVERY country expanded industrially by 'slavery and genocide'. Unfortunetly the harshest way is the fastest way to improve economic production in a short amount of time. Long term is a different story.

Btw, how much longer are you going to be in Jacksonville?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Britain, France, and the USA have all committed mass murder while at the same time being democracies. It's amazing what you can get away with if the people don't hear about it or attribute news of such things as the ravings of the insane left. Heck, with good propaganda, you can even justify the murder of two million Vietnamese, at least for a while.

Agreed. Democracy and a free press have lead to a reduction of abuses. Democracy is all about empowering the middle and working classes. A free press is also reduces abuses.

There is nothing inherent in either socialism or capitalism that leads to slavery and mass murder. However, both can be abused by lack of democracy and a free press.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, how much longer are you going to be in Jacksonville?

Could be a day, could be longer. Depends on where I get a gig. Bunnygrrl looks set to get a job at Parisian as a stockgirl but I've got nothin'. Had some nibbles but they don't seem to be going anywhere. I don't hate living here, but it's not the part of Florida where I really to live.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hmmm... I'm sure you could get a job in Hotlanta .

[chequita guevara]

I've applied to a few there. Atlanta has its positives, like its a major metropolis, has an alternative scene, a great hip hop scene, etc. I need my freaks, geeks, queers and punks. But it's way to far from the cooling breezes of the ocean.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, that is one of its downfalls, but there are areas where the politics mesh with yours .

And you can hang out with me! What more do you need .

Seriously, though, I hope you find something good. If its in Atlanta, great . I'll help you unpack and show ya around and stuff .

[chequita guevara]

Gah, it should not be over 80 at the end of October. This is just unnatural.

[Imran Siddiqui]

80?! I'm lucky if it'll get to 70. It's hovering around 60 around now.

[chequita guevara]

It's hot and I'm watching ligthening creep up on my location.

[Sten Sture]

Che, I am surprised that you didn't argue that the growth in the 19th century was the result of good old regular Labor.

There was a massive redistribution of available labor at the time, as hands came in from the countryside to work in the cities. It was the readily available sweat-capital that made this great leap forward possible. Free market capitalists like myself would be hard pressed to argue against that fact. Though we would say that jobs continued to grow by the reivestment of that capital...


Enron ends up being a good story for capitalism. They lied to the sources of capital, and went out of business. Absolutely Darwinian. If you practice a form of business that is rapacious, you get f'ed by the capital markets.


Does anyone still care, in this thread, why an equity stake in UAL is worth less than one of the company's planes?


>
It is always 60 here, kinda boring.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Tell You what Che,

You move to Hotlanta and I'll buy first round for both you and Imran

Og of Marietta

[Sava]

Sorry for not getting back to this thread for a while, I do have a life outside these forums (unlike some I see ).

Anyways, I need to point something out that I repeated have to point out because people don't listen; and well, not to be offensive here, but some people on these boards are just flat out retarded.

NO WHERE DID I SAY THERE SHOULD BE A MANDATED SHARING OF WEALTH. I AM NOT A COMMUNIST, I DON'T BELIEVE IN DIVINDING UP WEALTH, LAND, ETC; AND DISTRIBUTING IT TO PEOPLE.

ahhh much better, now you ****ing trolls should listen up... I won't name names, its fairly obvious who's trolling and who is actually partaking in an intelligent debate.

1) Health care should either be a.) government run by tax money, and completely non-profit... or b.) run by private corporations but non-profit... to compensate I would support large tax benefits for these corporations in their other industries; or possibly putting them higher on the list for government contracts. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions from people who know more about these industries than me.

2.) Education should be completely communal in terms of how money is spent and the quality of education. Of course, there will be some people who say, "I don't want my tax dollars spent on other schools." Well, to those people, I say, stop being selfish. This world sucks, and the least we can do is provide education to people who don't have the luxury of being born into rich, predominantly white suburban communities. More education = less crime... more education = more jobs and opprotunities for EVERYONE.

3.) Energy and public transit should also be standardized and have either non-profit corporations running them or regulated profit margins. I would also support some sort of other benefits to honest companies that would lose out. For instance, perhaps giving advertising space, government contracts, or tax benefits to companies.

For all other sectors of the economy... I would support near laissez faire capitalism... for instance, consumer goods. Aside from imperialism, the thing that has made America a rich and powerful nation is the enterpreneurial spirit. My grandfather came to this country and ran his own successful shoe repair business. He's 82 and still works 6 days a week; much more than 40 hours.

Just because I'm against the evils of corporate America and the United State's imperialistic policies, doesn't mean that I'm a commie. The idea of working for your money needs to be preserved, but at the same time; it is my belief (and the belief of the US's founding fathers) that everyone should be entitled to education; not just the rich and middle classes.

Asher: seriously, don't bother posting any more troll boy... this discussion has no room for ignorant people. I do think for myself, I don't listen to the blather that is pop-culture. You have previously shown your submissive nature towards everything pop-culture and whatever the TV happens to tell you. I do have some advice, go to your local library, read some philosophy, and come up with your own ideas. Just because I happen to agree with an ancient philosopher, Xunzi, does not mean I hold his writings under my pillow when I sleep. There are lots of stuff that I've read that I completely disagree with. It is not my intention to direct insults directly at you. Prove me wrong... it is apparant that you don't read. I admit my own ignorance all the time. In fact, I know little about the inner-workings of business and government. As a 22-year-old student, I see the evils in the world, and I'm making my own suggestions. People like OgieOglethorpe and Dino Doc are offering intelligent arguments against me. Even connor said he was abstaining from this discussion because of his own professed ignorance.

The whole point of this thread, and any other debates I create are for people to listen to my ideas and educate me on how the world works, and how we can make it a better place. I have no patience for people who just say, "Your idea sucks, you are stupid." Frankly, these forums, and the world, would be better off without you (I am speaking in general and not at any particular person).

Again, I apologize in advance, it is not my intent to name-call, but sometimes ignorance needs to be pointed out. One of the biggest problems in this world is ignorance.

[Odin]

WOW! Sava and I share practicaly identical views.

[Sava]

I know, many people seemed to be turned off to my views simply because of my methods. I like to get people pissed off so they use their minds for a change. In reality, many share my views.

Even though I seem like it on the boards, I'm really not a psycho-tree hugger or anything like that. I'm just a good moral person who sees the potential for human civilization to be closer to Utopia.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava

Don't underestimate me Asher. My family came to this country from war torn Europe with nothing and has built a moderately high degree of economic standing. Each generation has been more successful than the previous one. My grandfather built a successful business, and at 82, still works 6 full days a week. My mother is a VP for a clinical laboratory company that employs 40k. I am currently on my way to finishing a 4 year degree in computers. I'm 5 years, I'll have my own company. I plan on getting an MBA and going to law school.

The world is my oyster, I have not yet come to a goal or obstacle I cannot attain or overcome. Am I a lazy person? Hah... Don't worry, I'm sure in ten or twenty years when you're sitting in your small 2 bedroom house in rural Canada, you'll see on TV a young idealist pushing his way into the American government. But I doubt you have the mental capacity to even remember someone like me. Just remember the name Sava. You can bet that I'll be laughing on the inside at all the naysayers.

While everything you wrote in the full length post from which this was snipped was crap, I find this part to be particularly revealing of your narcissism. Just because you are blessed with an above average IQ (I'm being generous here) doesn't make you the smartest person in any particular group. In this forum for instance you have not only shown an incapability to hold your own in an argument, but an annoying tendency to rant and completely discount the opinions of other posters who are more intelligent, more experienced, and considerably more mature than you are. You have none of the attributes that make a good leader, least of all humility. In fact your combination of mediocre intellect (in the broad sense, here on Apolyton I put you one step above Fez) combined with your high opinion of yourself and you low opinion of everyone else seem destined to make you loathed by anyone unhappy enough to have to deal with you on a daily basis.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
Asher: seriously, don't bother posting any more troll boy... this discussion has no room for ignorant people.

Perhaps you should keep that in mind before pressing the New Thread button in the future...

I do think for myself, I don't listen to the blather that is pop-culture.

No, you still don't get it. You're one of those people who is anti-pop culture. You don't think for yourself, as shown by how you back up every single one of your assertions with a book someone else wrote instead of talking about it yourself.

You have previously shown your submissive nature towards everything pop-culture and whatever the TV happens to tell you.

That's entirely not true -- I'm a utilitarian. I use what I like and I don't give a damn about the philosophy behind it.

I prefer doing my compsci homework in Linux over Windows because that's what it's geared towards. I like music that I like, which is a healthy mix of mainstream stuff as well as some really rare stuff I've found. I live in a country where my political opinion is a minority.

In what way do I buy whatever the TV tells me? Do you have any respect for anyone else on this board or are you high on yourself? I hope it doesn't have anything to do with your appearance because everyone here has been very generous about not saying anything about some of your pics.

I do have some advice, go to your local library, read some philosophy, and come up with your own ideas.

That's grand.
I have my own ideas, Sava, how many right wing Liberals do you know? I'm hardly mainstream when it comes to politics, are you mistaking me for someone else?

It is not my intention to direct insults directly at you. Prove me wrong... it is apparant that you don't read.

It's obviously not your intention, you seem to think that you're taking a high road by thinly disguising your insults with condescending crap. I'm not buying it, I actually find it quite amusing.

I admit my own ignorance all the time.

I can definitely see how you have to do that a lot.

The whole point of this thread, and any other debates I create are for people to listen to my ideas and educate me on how the world works, and how we can make it a better place. I have no patience for people who just say, "Your idea sucks, you are stupid." Frankly, these forums, and the world, would be better off without you (I am speaking in general and not at any particular person).

Do you know how obvious you are when you assume the role of a pseudo-intellectual? It's a complete 180 from how you behave in the other threads. You not only present anything to back up your arguments other than quoting some philosopher from centuries ago, you seem surprised when most people read your post and laugh.

Again, I apologize in advance, it is not my intent to name-call, but sometimes ignorance needs to be pointed out. One of the biggest problems in this world is ignorance.

I completely agree, Sava, but unfortunately if I had my way you'd be sterilized for that very reason. But that's for another thread.

If we put a poll here on Apolyton, asking who was more ignorant: Asher or Sava, it would be really interesting to see what the results would be. Not to sound arrogant, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like them.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sikander
While everything you wrote in the full length post from which this was snipped was crap, I find this part to be particularly revealing of your narcissism. Just because you are blessed with an above average IQ (I'm being generous here) doesn't make you the smartest person in any particular group. In this forum for instance you have not only shown an incapability to hold your own in an argument, but an annoying tendency to rant and completely discount the opinions of other posters who are more intelligent, more experienced, and considerably more mature than you are. You have none of the attributes that make a good leader, least of all humility. In fact your combination of mediocre intellect (in the broad sense, here on Apolyton I put you one step above Fez) combined with your high opinion of yourself and you low opinion of everyone else seem destined to make you loathed by anyone unhappy enough to have to deal with you on a daily basis.

Spot on.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Sava
I'm really not a psycho-tree hugger or anything like that

I am

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sava, you say you believe in lassiez faire, yet critisize corporations at every turn.

Frankly I don't believe you when you say you are lassiez faire in all but your 3 exceptions.

[Bosh]

If I remember correctly I was a good bit like Sava when I started posting on poly (although a good bit more polite IIRC), it really does a good bit of good both for your own sanity and for the enjoyment of the people who read you posts to mellow out so that what Sikander said doesn't apply to you quite so well as it does...

[Lord Merciless]

Sava seems to think grand of himself because his parents earn something like 100K combined(displaying how rich his family is), because he's studying computer science(showing off how smart is), and because he has great future plans(MBA, Law School..).

Well, I can tell you something. There are people in this forums who will beat you in every category, from money earned to academic achievements. And just because you and your family shows off some above average statistics doesn't mean you are any more superior to another human being.

BTW, may I ask which school you are at?

[Roland]

About american silver and gold, and the rise of capitalism:

How exactly did it help the accumulation of capital ? Silver and gold are pretty useless apart from jewelry, unless their scarcity makes them tender.

Having a huge amount of gold leaves you with a huge amount of an unproductive thing. Accordingly all the inflow of Spain's silver and gold produced was inflation.

Also around the mid of the 16th century, Spain's state revenue from taxes in Castile and the Netherlands was much larger than the value extracted from the Spanish colonies (Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers gives some numbers on this). Early european capitalism emerged in Flanders and northern Italy - and this was all related to trade, not colonialism. The roots of this go back to the great european economic expansion of the 10th-13th century.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sten Sture
Does anyone still care, in this thread, why an equity stake in UAL is worth less than one of the company's planes?

I am, I lay down my reasoning. What's yours?

1) Health care should either be a.) government run by tax money, and completely non-profit... or b.) run by private corporations but non-profit... to compensate I would support large tax benefits for these corporations in their other industries; or possibly putting them higher on the list for government contracts. I don't know, I'm open to suggestions from people who know more about these industries than me.

America is the leader in biotech by far for one reason....
The companies are for profit. The huge costs and profits from sale of drugs are funneled into research to create more new drugs.
Also, I think you place too much faith in "non-profit" organisations. The CEO's of non-profits still make a tremendous amount of money.... (Red Cross, and United Way) and are extrememly inept at getting their "product" to the "market."

2.) Education should be completely communal in terms of how money is spent and the quality of education. Of course, there will be some people who say, "I don't want my tax dollars spent on other schools." Well, to those people, I say, stop being selfish. This world sucks, and the least we can do is provide education to people who don't have the luxury of being born into rich, predominantly white suburban communities. More education = less crime... more education = more jobs and opprotunities for EVERYONE.

The problem I have with government funded schools is there are always so many strings attatched as to what can and cannot be taught.

Also, a little bit about American government workers last year......
64,000+ rated as poor performers.
643 fired.
It takes over 18 months to fire a government worker due to all of the loopholes you must jump through.

Another Statistic for you to chew on:
Average yearly cost for Private school student.... $2,200
Average yearly cost for public school student.... $5,100
Public schools spend over twice as much, and the kids come out worse off....

3.) Energy and public transit should also be standardized and have either non-profit corporations running them or regulated profit margins. I would also support some sort of other benefits to honest companies that would lose out. For instance, perhaps giving advertising space, government contracts, or tax benefits to companies.

Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith just won the Noel Prize for Economics for writing how de-regulating the energy market would be good for the consumer.
Mass transit is simply unrealistic in most American cities. A private bus company would only provide to the markets were mass transit were feasible, and this would be in the compact core of major metropoli.