08 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe - what? Have to tell you, this one is baffling.
I don't know exactly what role your boss plays. Normally a boss is a manager or supervisor. Those are workers. If your boss is one of those there is no capitalism in your company; just a worker who owns his own company. The capitalists are the people you rent stuff from like maybe offices or cranes or trucks or simply loans of money paid with interest ...[text shortened]... not lose.
Capitalists are not paid for what they do they are paid for what they legally own.
08 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I think it’s this—
The - what? Have to tell you, this one is baffling.
Capitalists are the owners of productive capital (although financial capital may be included, the two are properly distinguishable). The return to that ownership is similar to the return for the usage of owned land: a rent.
An entrepreneur is essentially someone who arbitrages market conditions (bearing risk in the process) in order to make a profit (a “quasi-rent” for risk-taking). An entrepreneur may own capital, may rent capital, may do neither.
There is a distinction in usage between American and British economists (generally and historically). “Profit”, in American usage, is the remainder after costs are subtracted from revenue. This may be the return to the entrepreneur. “Profit” in British (European, generally?) usage, refers to the “rental rate” (or its equivalent) on capital, which is an interest rate. When the Cambridge (England) economists refer to the “rate of profit”, that’s what they mean. We would more likely mean profit (gross, operating, net) divided by sales revenue.
If you buy machinery, say, (capital equipment) for your business, the cost of that equipment factored over time (since capital equipment is used over time) is the cost of capital to your firm, and the return on capital to the capitalist that sold you the equipment (and you can see how this can be “chained”: that capitalist also may have purchased—or rented—physical capital equipment to produce the equipment sold to you). Now you can factor in depreciation, as the capital equipment will be used up over time.
I cannot recall the intimate details; but Keynes developed a formula relating the “marginal efficiency of capital” to the interest rate. Basically, if the return to your investment (rental or purchase) of capital equipment (with a depreciation factor, at least in the case of purchase) is expected to be less than the interest rate available on, say, a bond (risk adjusted)—then buy the bond instead. Of course, the return on your capital investment depends on demand for the product produced therefrom. [And all of this can be recast in terms of “human capital”—ignoring ethical considerations.]
It may be a fine distinction, but your boss could be an entrepreneur without being a capitalist per se, at least in the traditional sense.
______________________________________________________
EDIT: Although I've had a bit of gin now, and maybe am not making any sense at all. Time to leave.
08 Nov 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sasquatch672You've implied you had a strong understanding of economics in other threads. I'm surprised this is confusing you.
The - what? Have to tell you, this one is baffling.
Workers work and receive wages for doing so. They must pay capitalists in order to access the tools they need to work.
Capitalists invest money and ideally make a profit for doing so. They don't work; they get paid because they own the factors of production the workers need.
Communism is where instead of paying capitalists to access what you need to work you go to the government instead. This freaks out capitalists because it denies them those free checks that come in every month without them having to work.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWorkers work and receive wages for doing so. They must pay capitalists in order to access the tools they need to work.
You've implied you had a strong understanding of economics in other threads. I'm surprised this is confusing you.
Workers work and receive wages for doing so. They must pay capitalists in order to access the tools they need to work.
Capitalists invest money and ideally make a profit for doing so. They don't work; they get paid because they ow ...[text shortened]... ecause it denies them those free checks that come in every month without them having to work.
Capitalists invest money and ideally make a profit for doing so. They don't work; they get paid because they own the factors of production the workers need.
Okay, I’m drunk. I have a (old) masters degree in economics. I have not (yet) had the opportunity to study Marxian economics ( a bit, but not much).* I think your argument here is refutable—but not dismissible (except by those who don’t even know what they don’t know).
There was also a (non-Marxian) economist named Frank Taussig, who said (something like): “How can there be a different product allocated to the tool than that allocated to the worker wielding the tool?”
I’ll think about it when I’m more sober—but, really good stuff. Let’s see what the “capitalists” say.
___________________________________________________
* I have volume 1. Of Capital, but have read little of it as yet. The term “Marxian” used to refer to the study of Marx’s economic analysis, without necessarily referring to his political analysis or prescriptions: one could be a Marxian (economist) without being a Marxist.
08 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're coming unhinged.
You've implied you had a strong understanding of economics in other threads. I'm surprised this is confusing you.
Workers work and receive wages for doing so. They must pay capitalists in order to access the tools they need to work.
Capitalists invest money and ideally make a profit for doing so. They don't work; they get paid because they ow ...[text shortened]... ecause it denies them those free checks that come in every month without them having to work.
10 Nov 12
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdEntrepreneur borrows money from the capitalist to start his business. If he fails to make money the capitalist gains ownership of the entrepreneurs home because its collateral.
Technical distinction between “capitalist” and “entrepreneur” (within a capitalist system)?
I actually knew an entrepreneur. Its such an abstract yet glorified word. An entrepreneur makes new gadgets in a workshop with tools and stuff. This guy I knew invented an inexpensive portable foam hot tub. Made lots of money then started working on a portable inexpensive sauna in his workshop with his hands.
The generator salesman is not an entrepreneur. An entrepreneur might invent a wind powered generator to harness the storm.
No entrepreneuring or capitalism in his story but capitalists take credit anyway.
Actually I might misunderstand what entrepreneuring is the definitions online are very strange.
10 Nov 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou are Thought ? NOoooooooooo!!! You are NUTZ !!!!!!
As an epiphenomenon of historic process, it would be more accurate to say that 'I am thought' rather than that 'I think'. That aside: the myth of the self made man (rugged individualism) is more than a little delusional.
I found this picy of you in DEEP THOUGHT:
CUCKOO for COCO PUFFS!!!!!!!
GRANNY.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, state-owned industry freaks capitalists out because the state is terrible at business. It's kind of like, those who can, do; those who can't, regulate.
You've implied you had a strong understanding of economics in other threads. I'm surprised this is confusing you.
Workers work and receive wages for doing so. They must pay capitalists in order to access the tools they need to work.
Capitalists invest money and ideally make a profit for doing so. They don't work; they get paid because they ow ...[text shortened]... ecause it denies them those free checks that come in every month without them having to work.
We've seen totalitarianism socialism in the recent past. It crumbled. Why would Americans want it?
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672I'm an anarchist myself.
No, state-owned industry freaks capitalists out because the state is terrible at business. It's kind of like, those who can, do; those who can't, regulate.
We've seen totalitarianism socialism in the recent past. It crumbled. Why would Americans want it?
Capitalists don't care about how good the state is at business they care about getting the high score.
Cool double rainbow granny. I wonder if it has a two headed leprechaun with a pot of uranium.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou'll like Somalia then.
I'm an anarchist myself.
Capitalists don't care about how good the state is at business they care about getting the high score.
Cool double rainbow granny. I wonder if it has a two headed leprechaun with a pot of uranium.
Wait - no, even Somalia has government. Anarchist. See, that's like saying you want to go live on Saturn. There's no point in believing in anarchy, because it doesn't exist. I hereby declare you a Republican.
When you want to join the land of the living, we're over here. Come on in, the water's warm.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by sasquatch672Well droughts suck. And I don't have connections there. But there is potential there.
You'll like Somalia then.
Wait - no, even Somalia has government. Anarchist. See, that's like saying you want to go live on Saturn. There's no point in believing in anarchy, because it doesn't exist. I hereby declare you a Republican.
When you want to join the land of the living, we're over here. Come on in, the water's warm.
As with economics you think you know more about political and economic structure than you actually do. Anarchism is representative democracy without absentee landlords that's all.
11 Nov 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat?
Well droughts suck. And I don't have connections there. But there is potential there.
As with economics you think you know more about political and economic structure than you actually do. Anarchism is representative democracy without absentee landlords that's all.