Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is Capitalism Dead?

Page 10 of 11 [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Is Capitalism Dead?
Yes 23%  23%  [ 11 ]
No 77%  77%  [ 37 ]
Total votes : 48

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:10 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
So he just said some words and they work, big deal. I think we can move on now. I am not saying it completely dead, but neither are many other ways of life from our past. My point is that capitalism is not so great. Yes it has some good ideas, but besides that so what?

Well, no, he is considered the father of Classical economics, and currently the dominant paradigm in economics is the NeoClassical theory, which is somewhat descended from his ideas. Thus, we cannot move on, as we are still within his paradigm somewhat, we just cannot take Smith as authoritative either, as his importance is just one for the history of thought.

Well, good ideas are the measure of goodness I would think. In any case, an economic system does not have good ideas, proponents of capitalism have had some very interesting and great insights though, and many of them extended far beyond Adam Smith's range of thought.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:15 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
It is government interference which is not capitalist.

Has no relationship to my comment though. My comment even admitted that capitalism could even have a flaw.

Quote:
People can interpret economics however they see itto work. Orwell said it himself what doe capitalism care about science? So what does science care about capitalism?

Well, except they can't as economics is an analytical format which includes a logical basis built upon some very basic assumptions about human nature(that can even be altered to deal with new understandings)
As for science and capitalism? Well, capitalism cares to make use of science for it's purposes, and science cares to make use of capitalism for it's purposes.
Quote:
economics is a social science not a rock hard concept.

Most things in life aren't rock-hard concepts, that doesn't mean we can ignore most of the things we know. Particularly given that economics, compared to most social sciences, has taken a particular interest in logical rigor.


Just because somthing is logical does not make it better. I know they donot have to be rock hard concepts, but that does mean capitalism is just a bunch of ideas people combined overtime just as mixed economic system combines concepts overtime.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

03 Apr 2009, 12:17 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
So he just said some words and they work, big deal. I think we can move on now. I am not saying it completely dead, but neither are many other ways of life from our past. My point is that capitalism is not so great. Yes it has some good ideas, but besides that so what?

Matsuiny, delayed April's Fools trolls aren't funny. If this is anything other than that, you force me to conclude that you are severely intoxicated at the moment, because nothing you're posting is making any sense at all.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:18 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Just because somthing is logical does not make it better. I know they donot have to be rock hard concepts, but that does mean capitalism is just a bunch of ideas people combined overtime just as mixed economic system combines concepts overtime.

Usually logical = better, as most studies have to have a solid logical foundation, and if they lack this, then they are considered flawed from the onset.

Well, laissez faire capitalism is a bunch of ideas combined over time, and a mixed economic system is a bunch of concepts combined over time. The question emerges which idea is better, and to what extent and where.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:22 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
So he just said some words and they work, big deal. I think we can move on now. I am not saying it completely dead, but neither are many other ways of life from our past. My point is that capitalism is not so great. Yes it has some good ideas, but besides that so what?

Well, no, he is considered the father of Classical economics, and currently the dominant paradigm in economics is the NeoClassical theory, which is somewhat descended from his ideas. Thus, we cannot move on, as we are still within his paradigm somewhat, we just cannot take Smith as authoritative either, as his importance is just one for the history of thought.

Well, good ideas are the measure of goodness I would think. In any case, an economic system does not have good ideas, proponents of capitalism have had some very interesting and great insights though, and many of them extended far beyond Adam Smith's range of thought.


Economics xisted way before Smith. As for dominant pardigms the view that aspergers is a disease is the dominant paradigm in psychiatry and psychology, but that does not make it the best nor mean I have to agree with it. What worth is all the money we have now anyway? I can jsut make it worth wahtever I want since it is not based on what is physcially existing, but without resources huamns would die so seems pointless to me to have such a system.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:26 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
Economics xisted way before Smith. As for dominant pardigms the view that aspergers is a disease is the dominant paradigm in psychiatry and psychology, but that does not make it the best nor mean I have to agree with it. What worth is all the money we have now anyway? I can jsut make it worth wahtever I want since it is not based on what is physcially existing, but without resources huamns would die so seems pointless to me to have such a system.

Well, yes, it did. Some of it was alright, such as the writings of the Spanish Scholastics, other aspects were crap such as Aquinas's Just Price theory.

Well, the issue is that you have to address it in a meaningful manner to reject it. It isn't as if you can reject anything because you feel like it.

The money? It is worth what you can buy with it. No, you really can't make money worth whatever you want, because money is tied to resources by it's nature. If money could not buy X amount of resources, then it wouldn't be valued as money.

It seems pointless to you because I doubt you fully accept the underlying reasons for it.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:28 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Just because somthing is logical does not make it better. I know they donot have to be rock hard concepts, but that does mean capitalism is just a bunch of ideas people combined overtime just as mixed economic system combines concepts overtime.

Usually logical = better, as most studies have to have a solid logical foundation, and if they lack this, then they are considered flawed from the onset.

Well, laissez faire capitalism is a bunch of ideas combined over time, and a mixed economic system is a bunch of concepts combined over time. The question emerges which idea is better, and to what extent and where.


I would have t it depends. Most humans are not logical or rational anyway so even if capitalism is the most logical it seems most people would not care. Logic is a concept constructed by humans at least that is what I think when I hear the word.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:31 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
I would have t it depends. Most humans are not logical or rational anyway so even if capitalism is the most logical it seems most people would not care. Logic is a concept constructed by humans at least that is what I think when I hear the word.

Well, you are not understanding what I mean by logical then. What I mean is that there is a methodology to it. Not that the system is only for rationalists, and frankly some of the defenders of capitalism have recognized human irrationality, but they are still working from a logical foundation.

In any case, if logic is a construct, then what isn't a construct? If all things are constructs then doesn't that make language just a game? If everything is just a game of personal interpretation, then why care about anything? You can debunk anything through the rejection of logic.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:31 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
Economics xisted way before Smith. As for dominant pardigms the view that aspergers is a disease is the dominant paradigm in psychiatry and psychology, but that does not make it the best nor mean I have to agree with it. What worth is all the money we have now anyway? I can jsut make it worth wahtever I want since it is not based on what is physcially existing, but without resources huamns would die so seems pointless to me to have such a system.

Well, yes, it did. Some of it was alright, such as the writings of the Spanish Scholastics, other aspects were crap such as Aquinas's Just Price theory.

Well, the issue is that you have to address it in a meaningful manner to reject it. It isn't as if you can reject anything because you feel like it.

The money? It is worth what you can buy with it. No, you really can't make money worth whatever you want, because money is tied to resources by it's nature. If money could not buy X amount of resources, then it wouldn't be valued as money.

It seems pointless to you because I doubt you fully accept the underlying reasons for it.


That is my point it depends on resources, but doesnt that make the concept of fiat currency useless? Why notjust use it to represent the resources?


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:34 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
I would have t it depends. Most humans are not logical or rational anyway so even if capitalism is the most logical it seems most people would not care. Logic is a concept constructed by humans at least that is what I think when I hear the word.

Well, you are not understanding what I mean by logical then. What I mean is that there is a methodology to it. Not that the system is only for rationalists, and frankly some of the defenders of capitalism have recognized human irrationality, but they are still working from a logical foundation.

In any case, if logic is a construct, then what isn't a construct? If all things are constructs then doesn't that make language just a game? If everything is just a game of personal interpretation, then why care about anything? You can debunk anything through the rejection of logic.


How can a person logically understand irationality? Isn't logic a ratonal concept?


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:34 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
That is my point it depends on resources, but doesnt that make the concept of fiat currency useless? Why notjust use it to represent the resources?

No. Money already represents the resources, the issue is that the basket of resources that are available in exchange for each other is always shifting. For instance, let's say that more people want oil. Well, if oil is more scarce in regards to what is supplied and what is demanded, then you could buy less oil using the same basket of other resources, thus the price of oil in money is higher.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:35 am

Delete



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 03 Apr 2009, 12:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:38 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
How can a person logically understand irationality? Isn't logic a ratonal concept?

Irrationality? Umm.... if you mean cognitive failure to behave in a utility maximizing manner, then yes, that is understandable, and that is how I interpreted your comment.

If you mean some outright thing beyond all conceivability, then no, nothing can rationalize that. But once we get into things like that, we move past conception and therefore sense and meaning, and therefore language. So, I do not see a reason to go that far, because if logic is just a human invention, then even the technocratic ideas are failures.



matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:42 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Delete


traditionally money was a medium of exchange. If I wantd gold I would trade in my banknote for it.

Fiat money is not supposedto represent an existing resource. That is what representative money is for.

this might explsin my point better.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118000

people have faith in the money it does not exist otherwise. That is fiat money.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


matsuiny2004
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,152

03 Apr 2009, 12:48 am

I guess my interpretation of what capitalism is and what they mean by dead is the current form of economics done in the US. Their view of an alternative could be any system that is nt the current if that is what capitalism being dead is. It really is pointless to say the entire concept would be dead, but not surprisingly I think we are taking the comments of average wire people and interpreting them in ways they were not even thinking of. So this entire debate may just be cmpletely pointless due to it vague and broad basis.


_________________
A person that does not think he has problems already has one-Me

surveys are scientific, they have numbers in them- me (satire)


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

03 Apr 2009, 12:56 am

matsuiny2004 wrote:
traditionally money was a medium of exchange. If I wantd gold I would trade in my banknote for it.

Fiat money is not supposedto represent an existing resource. That is what representative money is for.

this might explsin my point better.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2118000

people have faith in the money it does not exist otherwise. That is fiat money.

Money is by definition a medium of exchange.

Fiat money is *still* a medium of exchange, and thus it represents existing resources. It does not represent gold, but rather it represents everything that can be bought using money. So, a dollar also represents the ability to buy a cheeseburger at McDonalds.

I think the paper has no relevance, as I am only using the definition of all things labeled money, the medium of exchange quality of it, to make my point.

Well, people always have to have faith in money. Either that, or they have to have a pre-existent desire to have the substance.