«

[Tulac]

If I have 2000$ in my pocket, I can invest in a PC and start making website to earn for living, and so I have capital(the PC), however I can also buy myself a gaming console, TV, several games, and that wouldn't be capital...
So that's why money isn't capital, because by it's spending it doesn't neccesarily mean that you'll invest it into a good that'll allow you to produce other goods (or services)...

[Mighty Midget]

You really haven't proved it. The PC would be a joint in a chain towards 'making a living'. So would the money. Second: What is 'making a living'? Isn't it to make money that allow you to buy whatever you need? This is nothing but a circle chain, where all joints are equally important, and serve the same purpose, namely to get you to the next joint in the chain. For their purpose, it's pointless to call one joint capital and the next something different.

I'd call knowledge capital, would you?

Playing games can increase your knowledge in some areas. The games you own are therefore capital by your own definition of capital (the PC example).

[Tulac]

No capital is everything that can be produced and is used for production of other products a PC for instance(producing web sites), this doesn't have to do anything with making a living, you can make a living without producing anything, like if you were a waiter...

Money produces nothing, it can be invested in capital goods which will then be used for production of other products, but it can also be spend for consumer goods which only get consumed...

Also human work isn't capital because you can't produce it, neither is land but they are inputs and are also used in production...

[Mighty Midget]

A definition at last I'll look into it and see if I can make head and tail out of it.

You haven't heard the last word from me, I tell you

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 8 2006, 09:13 AM) [snapback]235155[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 12:45 AM) [snapback]235098[/snapback]

Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.[/b]

I think this is a fault with capitalism, not communism. In a communist system, as Midget is describing, the people building the factory will be working (and so will have access to the pool); whereas, in capitalism, there is no money to be made from building a factory so the people building the factory will either have to be already rich, or willing to go into major debt in order to build the factory.

[/b][/quote]

You missed my point. While the factory is being built, the workers are drawing food, water, tools, bricks, mortar, steel, machinery, and anything else needed to support themselves and the construction project. They contribute nothing. An unfinished factory contributes nothing. Midget said nothing about working, he said that those who contribute to the pool can draw from it. The only contributions of the factory during construction are intangible. At the end of each day, the factory builders arrive at the storehouses with empty hands and leave with groceries.

The other problem with Midget's proposed society: suppose I make simple wooden chairs for the pool, and for my own enjoyment, I make myself a rocking chair. Nobody else needs a rocking chair, but everyone who sits in it, wishes there were some in the pool for them to have one, too. Where is the incentive for me to produce extra rocking chairs, if plain old chairs will get my needs fulfilled and they are easier to produce. I am not freeloading and no one actually needs a rocking chair, so I cannot be punished for not making more rocking chairs.

In a capitalist society, you do not need to be extremely wealthy to build a factory. All you need to do is convince a large number of people to each risk a small amount of money. Going into major debt is not that big a deal, so long as you have an achievable business plan. Hydroelectric power dams take years to build and require huge amounts of labour and other resources, yet they still get built, as they have fairly predicatable costs and revenue streams.

From Midget:
The problem here is that you use today's way of organizing to describe a completly different system. It's like if "F1 racing cannot possibly work, because that would require curves that goes in any direction. But as we all know, Indy Car race tracks only have left turns. You cannot have a right turn on a left turn track. That proves that F1 racing is impossible'. Surely you see the faulty logic here, but I assure you, this is a very good 'picture' of this whole pro/anti-communism debate.

Your analogy is flawed in many ways. First, F1 evolved out of Grand Prix racing and Indy car racing evolved from Grand Prix (first curvy courses, then ovals). Second, there is a clear migration path from oval courses to road courses. Do not fault me for using today's terminology. Once you have specialization, you trade and an economy.

If we cannot migrate from what we have now to what you advocate, there is no point to saying your system is better. Being unable to go from a capitalist society to a communist one is a fatal flaw with communism. Until you can explain how to become a communist society, given the society we currently live in, communism is stillborn.

[Mighty Midget]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 03:30 PM) [snapback]235241[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 8 2006, 09:13 AM) [snapback]235155[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 12:45 AM) [snapback]235098[/snapback]

Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.[/b]

I think this is a fault with capitalism, not communism. In a communist system, as Midget is describing, the people building the factory will be working (and so will have access to the pool); whereas, in capitalism, there is no money to be made from building a factory so the people building the factory will either have to be already rich, or willing to go into major debt in order to build the factory.

[/b][/quote]

You missed my point. While the factory is being built, the workers are drawing food, water, tools, bricks, mortar, steel, machinery, and anything else needed to support themselves and the construction project. They contribute nothing. An unfinished factory contributes nothing. Midget said nothing about working, he said that those who contribute to the pool can draw from it. The only contributions of the factory during construction are intangible. At the end of each day, the factory builders arrive at the storehouses with empty hands and leave with groceries.

The other problem with Midget's proposed society: suppose I make simple wooden chairs for the pool, and for my own enjoyment, I make myself a rocking chair. Nobody else needs a rocking chair, but everyone who sits in it, wishes there were some in the pool for them to have one, too. Where is the incentive for me to produce extra rocking chairs, if plain old chairs will get my needs fulfilled and they are easier to produce. I am not freeloading and no one actually needs a rocking chair, so I cannot be punished for not making more rocking chairs.

In a capitalist society, you do not need to be extremely wealthy to build a factory. All you need to do is convince a large number of people to each risk a small amount of money. Going into major debt is not that big a deal, so long as you have an achievable business plan. Hydroelectric power dams take years to build and require huge amounts of labour and other resources, yet they still get built, as they have fairly predicatable costs and revenue streams.

From Midget:
The problem here is that you use today's way of organizing to describe a completly different system. It's like if "F1 racing cannot possibly work, because that would require curves that goes in any direction. But as we all know, Indy Car race tracks only have left turns. You cannot have a right turn on a left turn track. That proves that F1 racing is impossible'. Surely you see the faulty logic here, but I assure you, this is a very good 'picture' of this whole pro/anti-communism debate.

Your analogy is flawed in many ways. First, F1 evolved out of Grand Prix racing and Indy car racing evolved from Grand Prix (first curvy courses, then ovals). Second, there is a clear migration path from oval courses to road courses. Do not fault me for using today's terminology. Once you have specialization, you trade and an economy.

If we cannot migrate from what we have now to what you advocate, there is no point to saying your system is better. Being unable to go from a capitalist society to a communist one is a fatal flaw with communism. Until you can explain how to become a communist society, given the society we currently live in, communism is stillborn.
[/b][/quote]

First, I don't say it's better, or even possible. I just think some arguements deserve feedback for the sake of the mental excercise it offers or simply because what is said is factually wrong. Beside, the word revolution is often misunderstood or the revolution itself is disregarded altogether. Revolution means that something is changed radically, radix=root -> a complete root-deep change. The fact that no revolution to date has been successful does not mean a revolution has to be unsuccessful. It's all about ideas (as well as intelligence, something which I truely believe we humans lack).

Car racing evolution: Yes, they both are just stages in this evolution. So are capitalism and whatever form of society we might have in the future. Tribal life was an early stage, with concepts that can't be applied to capitalism. Capitalism has concepts that can't be applied to tribal life. Still they're stages in the same evolution. Goes to show that this 'gap' or 'leap' that you propose is there, doesn't even exist. I would still say the analogy is pretty neat.

Specialization -> economy: Explain why specialization ITSELF has to lead to economy.

[Havell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 04:30 PM) [snapback]235241[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Havell @ Jun 8 2006, 09:13 AM) [snapback]235155[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 12:45 AM) [snapback]235098[/snapback]

Factories are hard to build without money. In your pooled economic theory, for all the lead time between turning the the first shovel full of sod to the initial startup, none of the workers are contributing anything to the pool, yet they must be allowed to continue drawing from the pool, or the factory cannot be built. Even worse, if the factory produces more than can be used locally, there must be some uberpool that all communities can contribute to and draw from, but that extends the freeloader problem.[/b]

I think this is a fault with capitalism, not communism. In a communist system, as Midget is describing, the people building the factory will be working (and so will have access to the pool); whereas, in capitalism, there is no money to be made from building a factory so the people building the factory will either have to be already rich, or willing to go into major debt in order to build the factory.[/b][/quote]

You missed my point. While the factory is being built, the workers are drawing food, water, tools, bricks, mortar, steel, machinery, and anything else needed to support themselves and the construction project. They contribute nothing. An unfinished factory contributes nothing. Midget said nothing about working, he said that those who contribute to the pool can draw from it. The only contributions of the factory during construction are intangible. At the end of each day, the factory builders arrive at the storehouses with empty hands and leave with groceries.[/b][/quote]

The factory builders are producing and contributing, and a factory is most certainly a tangible thing. The pool consists not only of consumer goods but also of means of production. People accessing the pool not only get things like food and furniture but also the things they need for their work, such as raw materials, capital, and land.
Again, I think that there would be more investment in a Communist society, as there is no disincentive to produce factors of production, in that the same benefits are aquired from producing both capital and consuemr goods. As opposed to a capitalist economy, where there is a strong incentive to produce consumer goods over capital.

[Cifra]

I'm a little communistic in a way...

but Pol Pot also claimed to be acommunist and look what happened

[Fruit Pie Jones]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rlbell @ Jun 8 2006, 10:30 AM) [snapback]235241[/snapback]</div>

Your analogy is flawed in many ways. First, F1 evolved out of Grand Prix racing and Indy car racing evolved from Grand Prix (first curvy courses, then ovals). Second, there is a clear migration path from oval courses to road courses.[/b]

And of course there's the fact that Indy cars do race on "curvy courses" - Watkins Glen and Infineon Raceway, for example.

[rlbell]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Jun 8 2006, 03:47 PM) [snapback]235247[/snapback]</div>

Car racing evolution: Yes, they both are just stages in this evolution. So are capitalism and whatever form of society we might have in the future. Tribal life was an early stage, with concepts that can't be applied to capitalism. Capitalism has concepts that can't be applied to tribal life. Still they're stages in the same evolution. Goes to show that this 'gap' or 'leap' that you propose is there, doesn't even exist. I would still say the analogy is pretty neat.

Specialization -> economy: Explain why specialization ITSELF has to lead to economy.
[/b]

Tribal societies had the economic system that you are presenting as an alternative to the capitalist system, but once the tribes got past a tipping point of sophistication, size, or resources they abandoned it in favour of something closer to our capitalist system.

Money is necessary for a complex society. One of the many factors of the downfall of the western roman empire was a lack of money. Wealthy people were buying expensive goods from the far east, but the empire had no exportable goods to China, so the empire exported coins. Lacking any other form of acceptable currency, the economy was forced to a barter system. Rome had supplied most of its grain from Egypt, but had no convenient means to pay for it. Simply collecting the food from the farmers as taxes made farming sufficiently onerous that laws had to be passed and enforced to keep people from abandoning farms. Economic growth, needed if there is population growth, is very difficult without money. Money allows for Keynesian multiplication of investment.

You are suggesting that we can move our economic dynamics back to our tribal past, without rolling back anything else.