A Question on Wealth

[Cobber]

If in simplistic terms capitalism equates to increasing one's wealth, then how much wealth is enough?

Is it a capilatist's dream of being a millionaire?

As for me, the most amount of money I want is so that I don't have too worry about the next bill that comes in.

[MJM]

I think to the capitalist money is an end rather than a means.
So they can never have too much.

[vox]

It is the nature of capitalism to expand, thus is the function of the permanent social relations of capitalism. You will not find an economist, right-wing or not, who disagrees with this.

Therefore, it's not a matter of how much money one has, but the rate at which a business' profit expands that is the real question, and the real measure by which it is judged.

vox

(Edited by vox at 1:42 pm on Feb. 4, 2002)

[Supermodel]

I've always seen capitalism as a societal and corporate thing rather than a personal thing. For instance, are you a capitalist if you work for a corporation? Or only if you own stock? What if you are not a sharaholder but your pension plan is invested by the company in stocks?

All of these make you a capitalist. So individuals can be capitalists by transactions, which doesn't really speak to their beleifs.

On to the answer to your question. Here is my theory.

"How much wealth is enough" can be answered in two ways:

a) nothing will ever be enough, or
B) enough liquid assets which, conservatively invested, give the person and spouse the ability to live on their investments without HAVING to work any more. Barron's newsletter (an investment paper) puts the amount today at approx. $4 million.

So yes, a capitalist's dream is to be a millionnaire.

[Fires of History]

Great question Cobber!

Yes, how long can capitali$m continue to create wealth? How long can capitali$m keep raping the earth to find the resources it needs to live it's capitali$tic ****ed up fantasy?

To a capitali$t there is no such thing as enough money. They hoard and hoard, with no regard for people or society; they believe they are an island, disconnected from society, that has no connection or relationship with society.

The problem is that capitali$tic society makes MONEY the ONLY VALUE.

Until that is changed, and we create other important values such as community, equality, etc, until that day capitali$m will continue to hoard and hoard...

Power to the People,
Trance

[MrWinkle]

The resident capitalist answers these perplexing questions...

First off, a problem with the term capitalist. I'm a capitalist because I support the institution of capitalism. Unfortunately, I'm rather unemployed right now, so I suppose I'm not generating capital - and thus not a capitalist? I'm not sure. I prefer the term market-anarchist or libertarian, because it's more accurate. I'll save the argument for why Republicanism is not really "laissez-faire" capitalism for the Right Winger and Libertarian boards. Keep in mind however that when I say capitalism I mean free-market capitalism with little to no government.

"Is it the capitalist's dream of being a millionare?" Is it the communist's dream to run a commune factory? Maybe, but probably not - regardless, it's kind of beside the point, because one can think either system is all well and good without wanting to necessarily be live the extremes of the system.

Is it the businessman's dream to become a millionare? Yes, probably, or at least live very comfortably. That's not my dream, but I don't (nor should I) expect everyone's dreams to be like mine.

We can get cuddly and I can talk about my dreams, and you can talk about your dreams, but when it comes down to it, such a chat, though relevant, is secondary to the question of how do aquire a system where people can follow their individual dreams (which might include helping others in a meaningful way) with the best efficiency (?)


Now for another question: Is it anybody's dream to work in a factory for a wage that is under desirable living standards? Of course not. Again, how do we arrange a system where people get the things they want with the greatest efficiency (ie least amount of labor) and with the greatest speed? Communism is sorely lacking in both respects do to either the a) beurocracy in industrial communism, or b)the lack of helpful technology in agrarianism. We can argue this more elsewhere. The point is, an economic system is not a question of lifestyle or morality so much as it is a question of efficiency. [I realize that this last sentence will leap out at you as the very epitome of vile capitalism, but let me emphasize that efficiency in this case means least amount of work and least amount of wasted resources (note here, that a forest which is destroyed by strip mining is wasted, if not 'utterly', because there was likely much more to be had from it were it utilized in a deliberate, rational manner - in other words, if one is rational about how to dispose -- or not -- with a forest, one will likely profit from it). Efficiency in this case is to be understood as the least amount of work for the greatest gain.]

(I realize this is getting long - sorry)

This is all familiar, in that efficiency is how we conduct most of our lives. If I want to write music, I will not spend 5 years in business school to do it. On a broader scale, how I live my life is determined by how others live theirs and how their lives affect mine. Capitalism for me, then, is the efficient answer to the attainment of my goals. I will extend that, however, to say that I think capitalism is the most efficient system for nearly everyone (people like Stalin will likely suffer under it). In the sense of the thread's question, it's not a question about what the capitalist wants (or what the communist wants) so much as what people want and how (cap vs com) they wish to do in a world of 6bil+.


Two small other points: FIRES
It's not so much as there's never enough money, as there's never too much money. Let's pretend I have enough money right now, that doesn't mean I wouldn't like more. I also have enough carrots right now, more would be welcome, however.

A capitalist society makes money one standard value accepted by all. I value lots of things (integrity, family, friendship, coffee) above money. Money is not the value, but the means to that. The problem is, someone else might not value coffee (or whatever) as much as I do. Granted, I could theoretically put a price on my integrity or friendship (this is part of money, which can trade ANYTHING), that doesn't mean I WILL. I could also offer my friendship in exchange for carrots; that doesn't mean I will (or that anyone is stupid enough to think they can buy friendship with carrots--tasty though they might be).

[vox]

It's funny to me that Winkle calls himself a capitalist, though he seems to hold no capital. How bizarre.

However, his point about efficiency is sorely misguided, for he wishes to equate the socially necessary labor power to the individual, which, of course and for obvious reasons, cannot be done.

Capitalism's "efficiency" comes only through the division of labor. To equate this, as Winkle does, with the choices an individual makes is to deeply misunderstand both efficiency and the function of the labor in a capitalist society.

vox

[Imperial Power]

Mr. Winkle Glad to met the resident capitalist!

Cobbler in simplistic terms capitalism does not mean increasing ones wealth. It is a form of government. How much money you want to make is a personal issue. Most middle class capitalist's goal is to improve their quality of life and how much money that take is up to them.

[peaccenicked]

Capitalism, you say is a form of government, yet who votes for the capitalists. What is voted for unfortunately
is a goverment who represents the interests of capital
against the workers. read this article.

You want to be well and healthy; you want to be free, to serve no master, to crawl and humiliate yourself before no man; you want to have well-being for yourself, your family, and those near and dear to you. And not to be harassed and worried by the fear of to-morrow....

You want health, liberty, and well-being.
Every one is like yourself in this respect.
Therefore we all seek the same thing in life.
Then why should we not all seek it together, by joint effort, helping each other in it?

...It is because, though we all have the same aim in life, our interests are different. It is this that makes all the trouble in the world.

Suppose you want to get a pair of shoes or a hat. You go into the store and you try to buy what you need as reasonably and cheaply as you can. That is your interest. But the store-keeper's interest is to sell it to you as dearly as he can, because then his profit will be greater. That is because everything in the life we live is built on making a profit, one way or another. We live in a system of profit-making.

Now, it is plain that if we have to make profits out of each other, then our interests cannot be the same. They must be different and often even opposed to each other.

In every country you will find people who live by making a profit out of others. Those who make the biggest profits are rich. Those who cannot make profits are poor. The only people who cannot make any profits are workers. You can therefore understand that the interests of the workers cannot be the same as the interests of the other people. That is why you will find in every country several classes of people with entirely different interests.

Everywhere you will find:


A comparatively small class of persons who make big profits and who are very rich, such as bankers, great manufacturers and land owners - people who have much capital and who are therefore called capitalists. These belong to the capitalist class.
A class of more or less well-to-do people, consisting of business men and their agents, real estate men, speculators, and professional men, such as doctors, lawyers, inventors, and so on. This is the middle class or the bourgeoisie.
Great numbers of workingmen employed in various industries - in mills and mines, in factories and shops, in transport and on the land. This is the working class, also called the proletariat.
The bourgeoisie and the capitalists really belong to the same capitalistic class, because they have about the same interests, and therefore the people of the bourgeoisie also generally side with the capitalist class as against the working class.


You will find that the working class is always the poorest class, in every country. Maybe you yourself belong to the workers, to the proletariat. Then you know that your wages will never make you rich.

Why are the workers the poorest class? Surely they labor more than the other classes, and harder. Is it because the workers are not very important in the life of society? Perhaps we can even do without them?

Let us see. What do we need to live? We need food, clothing, and shelter; schools for our children; street cars and trains for travel, and a thousand and one other things.

Can you look about you and point out a single thing that was made without labor? Why, the shoes you stand in, and the streets you walk on, are the result of labor. Without labor there would be nothing but the bare earth, and human life would be entirely impossible.

But if all the wealth is the product of labor, then why does it not belong to labor? That is, to those who have worked with their hands or with their heads to create it - the manual worker and the brain worker.

Everybody agrees that a person has a right to own the thing that he himself has made.

But no one person has made or can make anything all by himself. It takes many men, of different trades and professions, to create something....all that we have, all wealth, is the product of the labor of many people, even of many generations. That is to say: all labor and the products of labor are social, made by society as a whole.

But if all the wealth we have is social, then it stands to reason that it should belong to society, to the people as a whole. How does it happen, then, that the wealth of the world is owned by some individuals and not by the people....

You know very well that it is the capitalistic class which owns the greatest part of the world's wealth. Must we therefore not conclude that the working people have lost the wealth they created, or that somehow it was taken from them?

They did not lose it, for they never owned it. Then it must be that it was taken away from them.

This is beginning to look serious. Because if you say that the wealth they created has been taken away from the people who created it, then it means that it has been stolen from them, that they have been robbed, for surely no one has ever willingly consented to have his wealth taken away from him.

It is a terrible charge, but it is true. The wealth the workers have created, as a class, has indeed been stolen from them. And they are being robbed in the same way every day of their lives, even at this very moment....(pp. 1-4)

The man who has money can put it into some business or industry. He invests it and lives on the profits. But you have no money. You have only your ability to work, your labor power.

In the capitalist system the workingman cannot work for himself, as in the old days. he cannot compete with the big manufacturers. So, if you are workman, you must find an employer. You work for him; that is, you give him your labor for so and so many hours a day or week, and he pays you for it. You sell him your labor power and he pays you wages.

In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.

This arrangement is called the wage system.

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenth of what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:


Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories. That's the landlord's profit.
Though the workers have made the tools and the machinery, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those tools and machinery. That's the manufacturer's profit.
Though the workers built the railroads and are running them, another slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the transportation of the goods they make. That's the railroad's profit.
And so on, including the banker who lends the manufacturer other people's money, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen, all of whom get their slice of the worker's toil.
What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor - is his share, his wage.

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker. (pp. 5-6)

The law says that your employer does not steal anything from you, because it is done with your consent. You have agreed to work for your boss for certain pay, he to have all that you produce. Because you consented to it, the law says thta he does not steal anything from you.

But did you really consent?

When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. you 'consent' all right, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun.

Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman's gun. You must live.... You can't work for yourself; under the capitalist industrial system you must work for an employer. The factories, machinery, and tools belong to the employing class, so you must hire yourself out to that class in order to work and live. Whatever you work at, whoever your employer may be, it always comes down to this: you must work for him.... You are compelled.

The law says it is 'free agreement'. Just as well might the highwayman say that you 'agreed' to give up your valuables. The only difference is that the highwayman's way is called stealing and robbery, and is forbidden by law. While the capitalist way is called business, industry, profit making, and is protected by law.

But whether it is done in the highwayman's way or in the capitalist way, you know that you are robbed.

The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery.

The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery.

That's the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things.

[vox]

In another thread, Imperialist Coward posted:

"Laissez faire capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state, just like the separation of church and state."

In this thread, he wrote:

"[Capitalism] is a form of government."

So, which is it, bright boy? Or can't you keep your lies straight?

Hee! You're just too much fun to laugh at, fool. :)

vox

[MrWinkle]

Vox offers up his observation as if I didn't say the same damn thing right at the outset. Oh well, maybe he forgot or didn't notice. Remember, I call Marx a communist, though he didn't live in a commune, nor even in a communist society.

If I get three buddies together, we move to the artic tundra, and we build a factory, is it valuable? The labor theory apparently says it is, because it is the product of labor. I disagree though, because this factory has no energy source, no workers, no means of sending any products elsewhere. In other words, the one side seems to say that because I built it there, it should be of value to people; the other side, my side, says this factory is of no use to my or others around me. It's useless, and therefore lacks value to anybody besides my buddies and me. If we decided we don't like it, then it's devoid of all value!

[Xvall]

Yes, as I side note. I don't believe many people on this board are capitalists, just blindly patriotic. (That leads to Police States and Fascist Governments by the way..) I soubt anyone here is very rich or wealthy, because I guarentee you that if you were, you would be too busy trying to look for a new spot to build a swimming pool, than concerning yourself with a website.

- Drake Dracoli

[Sasafrás]

Quote: from Imperial Power on 3:48 pm on Feb. 6, 2002
Cobbler in simplistic terms capitalism does not mean increasing ones wealth. It is a form of government.I'm not going to get involved in this again as I avoid things like this because they make me cringe, but.. I don't consider capitalism to be a "form of government." I'd be more apt to call it the set-up of a specific economy ( "economic system" ) or even a description of a society; however, not a form of government. The US government is democratic, not capitalistic; therefore, a capitalist economy exists in a nation which has a democratic government but "government" & "economy" are definitely not two interchangable terms.

And, though I live in a nation with a capitalist economy, I do not consider myself to be a capitalist. I don't have a job yet, I don't own stocks (I wouldn't even if I could), I hate The Wall Street Journal ( and all of its "adventures in capitalism" ), and I am frustrated with the rich and numerous large corporations. I just happened to be born a citizen of the United States. True enough, however, I do not have a problem with living in the States, I just have a problem with certain aspects of government, economy, society in general, etc.

[peaccenicked]

Moving to the tuntra to build a factory.
What to make, who for, what no money?
Get real. There is no point to your analogy whatsoever.