Success

[Stone holm]

I know this is not aimed at me but I argue that it is an amoral system not an immoral system.

Well it was aimed at me and I agree, capitalism is an amoral system. If it is constrained by moral precepts which allow for fair competition and protect the ability of small businesses to compete it can result in a moral and just society. However, if it is not constrained and wealth is allowed to concentrate to the point where small businesses cannot compete then it can have immoral consequences. In my fathers time it was possible for the average person to start a successful small business or farm. Communities flourished and industrial workers were able to organise to obtain a liveable wage. They did not have to compete with state controlled labor or peasants working on the verge of starvation or child labor. The very high income brackets paid a high level of taxation which was reinvested in infrastructure, education, and research as well as defence. Under such circumstances capitalism can work very well.

[JarMan]

Well it was aimed at me and I agree, capitalism is an amoral system. If it is constrained by moral precepts which allow for fair competition and protect the ability of small businesses to compete it can result in a moral and just society. However, if it is not constrained and wealth is allowed to concentrate to the point where small businesses cannot compete then it can have immoral consequences. In my fathers time it was possible for the average person to start a successful small business or farm. Communities flourished and industrial workers were able to organise to obtain a liveable wage. They did not have to compete with state controlled labor or peasants working on the verge of starvation or child labor. The very high income brackets paid a high level of taxation which was reinvested in infrastructure, education, and research as well as defence. Under such circumstances capitalism can work very well.

Rather than waxing philosophical, I would very much appreciate if you would just answer the question.

[The Nehor]

Rather than waxing philosophical, I would very much appreciate if you would just answer the question.

The question makes is insane, makes no sense, and is based on false premises. No one ever claimed opening a small business was a form of warfare waged against someone. So, still beating your wife?

[JarMan]

The question makes is insane, makes no sense, and is based on false premises. No one ever claimed opening a small business was a form of warfare waged against someone. So, still beating your wife?

I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to respond to questions or comments directed toward Stoneholm. (This is the fourth time you've done it in this thread.) Nevertheless, I'll help you out here. The claim was the following: "One could, however, consider unregulated free market capitalism a form of warfare. . ." Businesses are the very foundation of capitalism. Most of them start out small and then grow from there or else fail. Now, I could have asked a very broad question for Stoneholm regarding how capitalism is a form of warfare. But considering that he has a habit of dodging questions by giving long-winded answers that don't really even address the substance of the question, I think it will be more productive to try to get him to focus on a single aspect of capitalism. If he wants to answer my question by saying that he is thinking of aspects of capitalism other than small businesses, he is free to do that. And then I can follow up with questions that will hopefully get him to hone in on specific aspects of capitalism where he believes his comparison to be valid.

Speaking of answering specific questions, you claimed that my question was based on a "false premise." Will you please identify what you believe my false premise to be?

[Stone holm]

What I said was that you could consider unregulated capitalism as a form of warfare. If you did, you would be focusing on the dark competitive side where the goal is to defeat your competitors in a zero sum game which views the pie as only so big and. The goal is to get the biggest slice possible. One does not necessarily have to consider it a zero sum game. It is possible to view it as an ever expanding pie, but to do so you have to make sure that the cash is turning over or constantly circulating instead of accumulating.

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to respond to questions or comments directed toward Stoneholm. (This is the fourth time you've done it in this thread.) Nevertheless, I'll help you out here. The claim was the following: "One could, however, consider unregulated free market capitalism a form of warfare. . ." Businesses are the very foundation of capitalism. Most of them start out small and then grow from there or else fail. Now, I could have asked a very broad question for Stoneholm regarding how capitalism is a form of warfare. But considering that he has a habit of dodging questions by giving long-winded answers that don't really even address the substance of the question, I think it will be more productive to try to get him to focus on a single aspect of capitalism. If he wants to answer my question by saying that he is thinking of aspects of capitalism other than small businesses, he is free to do that. And then I can follow up with questions that will hopefully get him to hone in on specific aspects of capitalism where he believes his comparison to be valid.

Speaking of answering specific questions, you claimed that my question was based on a "false premise." Will you please identify what you believe my false premise to be?

Starting a small business and having an economy which favours the starting of a small business is a good thing unregulated capitalism does not necessarily favour such a situation, because it tends to concentrate wealth.

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to respond to questions or comments directed toward Stoneholm. (This is the fourth time you've done it in this thread.) Nevertheless, I'll help you out here. The claim was the following: "One could, however, consider unregulated free market capitalism a form of warfare. . ." Businesses are the very foundation of capitalism. Most of them start out small and then grow from there or else fail. Now, I could have asked a very broad question for Stoneholm regarding how capitalism is a form of warfare. But considering that he has a habit of dodging questions by giving long-winded answers that don't really even address the substance of the question, I think it will be more productive to try to get him to focus on a single aspect of capitalism. If he wants to answer my question by saying that he is thinking of aspects of capitalism other than small businesses, he is free to do that. And then I can follow up with questions that will hopefully get him to hone in on specific aspects of capitalism where he believes his comparison to be valid.

Speaking of answering specific questions, you claimed that my question was based on a "false premise." Will you please identify what you believe my false premise to be?

Why do you feel the need to personally attack people who disagree with you in discussions?

[The Nehor]

I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to respond to questions or comments directed toward Stoneholm. (This is the fourth time you've done it in this thread.) Nevertheless, I'll help you out here. The claim was the following: "One could, however, consider unregulated free market capitalism a form of warfare. . ." Businesses are the very foundation of capitalism. Most of them start out small and then grow from there or else fail. Now, I could have asked a very broad question for Stoneholm regarding how capitalism is a form of warfare. But considering that he has a habit of dodging questions by giving long-winded answers that don't really even address the substance of the question, I think it will be more productive to try to get him to focus on a single aspect of capitalism. If he wants to answer my question by saying that he is thinking of aspects of capitalism other than small businesses, he is free to do that. And then I can follow up with questions that will hopefully get him to hone in on specific aspects of capitalism where he believes his comparison to be valid.

Speaking of answering specific questions, you claimed that my question was based on a "false premise." Will you please identify what you believe my false premise to be?

I do not feel the need; I feel the want.

I must refuse to answer your question. You ask what false premise your question was based on when I specifically said it was based on false premises (plural).

[Stone holm]

I do not feel the need; I feel the want.

I must refuse to answer your question. You ask what false premise your question was based on when I specifically said it was based on false premises (plural).

Was your want satisfied?

[mfbukowski]

Rather than waxing philosophical, I would very much appreciate if you would just answer the question.

Wax on, wax off.

[Stone holm]

Wax on, wax off.

Someone want to explain to me why "waxing philosophical" is not something to be done on this Board?

[The Nehor]

Was your want satisfied?

No, I need more things to unnecessarily respond to.

[mfbukowski]

What I said was that you could consider unregulated capitalism as a form of warfare. If you did, you would be focusing on the dark competitive side where the goal is to defeat your competitors in a zero sum game which views the pie as only so big and. The goal is to get the biggest slice possible. One does not necessarily have to consider it a zero sum game. It is possible to view it as an ever expanding pie, but to do so you have to make sure that the cash is turning over or constantly circulating instead of accumulating.

Capitalism is not and never was, a zero sum game. That is precisely what socialists do NOT understand. Capitalism CREATES wealth. Look at the old Soviet Union.

Capitalism gives incentives for developing NEW sources of wealth- new ways to create wealth. No one would build a better mousetrap if they would not be rewarded for it.

Edited July 31, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

Capitalism is not and never was, a zero sum game. That is precisely what socialists do NOT understand. Capitalism CREATES wealth. Look at the old Soviet Union.

Capitalism gives incentives for developing NEW sources of wealth- new ways to create wealth. No one would build a better mousetrap if they would not be rewarded for it.

Actually I am looking at the current U.S. and comparing it to the old U.S. before large corportions took over retailing, farming, and moved our manufacturing facilities to a Communist Country.

[mfbukowski]

Someone want to explain to me why "waxing philosophical" is not something to be done on this Board?

Hey I get philosophical whacks all the time.

[Stone holm]

Hey I get philosophical whacks all the time.

Yeah, I would hope that people would wax philoshical frequently on this board rather than just trading snipes and insults...lol

[mfbukowski]

Actually I am looking at the current U.S. and comparing it to the old U.S. before large corportions took over retailing, farming, and moved our manufacturing facilities to a Communist Country.

So it is now a zero sum game, right? Yep it's impossible to create anything new and make money now. Look at Bill Gates and all those other guys who think they actually created something new and made money on their own

Yessirree those old family farms were real wealth creators all right. You could scratch the soil for generations and generations to eke out a subsistence level existence.

[Ahab]

Actually I am looking at the current U.S. and comparing it to the old U.S. before large corportions took over retailing, farming, and moved our manufacturing facilities to a Communist Country.

I think it all comes down to what your idea of being sucessful is all about. Not everyone is going to share your idea, don't cha know. Just lay it out as clearly as possible to tell us what you think as the ultimate standard for being successful.

On the most basic level, I'd say it means getting something done that you want to get done. And again, what you want may not be what somebody else wants.

Say your idea is to have a farm with a certain amount of land and a house, some animals, a happy family, and some friendly neighbors around you to help you get other things that you wanted. If you got that, and it was something you wanted, then I would say you would be what successful means to you, personally.

Personally, my idea of being successful is to be a king among other kings in the kingdom of God, with everything I want out of life.

If I had all of that, then I would be what I call successful. As it is now I'm just a peon who is working toward that goal, but still with a long way to go.

[Stone holm]

I think it all comes down to what your idea of being sucessful is all about. Not everyone is going to share your idea, don't cha know. Just lay it out as clearly as possible to tell us what you think as the ultimate standard for being successful.

On the most basic level, I'd say it means getting something done that you want to get done. And again, what you want may not be what somebody else wants.

Say your idea is to have a farm with a certain amount of land and a house, some animals, a happy family, and some friendly neighbors around you to help you get other things that you wanted. If you got that, and it was something you wanted, then I would say you would be what successful means to you, personally.

Personally, my idea of being successful is to be a king among other kings in the kingdom of God, with everything I want out of life.

If I had all of that, then I would be what I call successful. As it is now I'm just a peon who is working toward that goal, but still with a long way to go.

There seems to be a tendency, sometimes, to define success in this life in terms of ones status in the hereafter. Is there a way of defining success in this life without reference to the hereafter?

[Ahab]

There seems to be a tendency, sometimes, to define success in this life in terms of ones status in the hereafter. Is there a way of defining success in this life without reference to the hereafter?

Sure, if that's what you mean by success. You can define it with any of the terms you want to use to define it.

[The Nehor]

So it is now a zero sum game, right? Yep it's impossible to create anything new and make money now. Look at Bill Gates and all those other guys who think they actually created something new and made money on their own

Yessirree those old family farms were real wealth creators all right. You could scratch the soil for generations and generations to eke out a subsistence level existence.

I see the current flaw as the widespread use of the corporation. For some reason we decided it was a good idea to create a vessel for individual profit without individual responsibility and that lack of responsibility is dangerous.

[JarMan]

Why do you feel the need to personally attack people who disagree with you in discussions?

I haven't personally attacked you. I've simply disagreed with you and tried to keep you from dodging answers.

Someone want to explain to me why "waxing philosophical" is not something to be done on this Board?

When you wax philosophical as a substitute for answering a direct question it becomes a distraction. This is a discussion board not a blog.

You made a claim earlier about capitalism being a form of warfare. This wasn't a metaphorical statement about capitalism, I gather, because you followed it up by mentioning that the successful would control police, firefighters, and military. This is the type of claim that needs support. So which private entities are making war and controlling police and military in order to be successful capitalists?

[JarMan]

Capitalism is not and never was, a zero sum game. That is precisely what socialists do NOT understand. Capitalism CREATES wealth. Look at the old Soviet Union.

Exactly. Capitalism is not a zero sum game because it mobilizes capital, labor, and land that were previously not being productive. A new business will hire unemployed or under-employed laborers. And it will use capital and land that had been sitting dormant. The result is "new stuff" that wouldn't otherwise have been there. Nothing had to be destroyed in order to do it. And the beauty is that the consumer wins by having more options and lower prices.

[Stone holm]

So it is now a zero sum game, right? Yep it's impossible to create anything new and make money now. Look at Bill Gates and all those other guys who think they actually created something new and made money on their own

Yessirree those old family farms were real wealth creators all right. You could scratch the soil for generations and generations to eke out a subsistence level existence.

Funny, that is not the way I remember my old hometown with its prosperous family farmers and all the local businesses which they supported -- all of which are now gone -- but hey, the cheap food diners and the bars are still open.

[mfbukowski]

Funny, that is not the way I remember my old hometown with its prosperous family farmers and all the local businesses which they supported -- all of which are now gone -- but hey, the cheap food diners and the bars are still open.

But these were not start up operations.

In essence, all that was inherited wealth. We poor suckers in the city didn't have parents who had hundreds of acres- we wanted cheaper and more efficient food production, and there were a lot more of us than there were the farmers

Edited August 1, 2013 by mfbukowski