Capitalism or free trade has always been part of human existence. It’s like gravity or other Universal Laws: they are there whether or not you know it. But you are correct that Capitalism as a known economics system was not well understood in Smith’s day but it was known as trade. And as such it was poorly understood until Adam Smith. An…
Capitalism or free trade has always been part of human existence. It’s like gravity or other Universal Laws: they are there whether or not you know it. But you are correct that Capitalism as a known economics system was not well understood in Smith’s day but it was known as trade. And as such it was poorly understood until Adam Smith. And yes like most college professors today Smith was wary of businessmen in general. As for Marx, no man has done more evil in the world than he from his bad ideas. The idea that workers are alienated from the finished products of their labor has been misused and continues to be misused to justify terrible actions by men and governments. “No one knows how to make a pencil”, but the artist and engineer and scientist have never hesitated to use one and share great ideas and discoveries with the world.
Daniel, You seem to be using a very broad definition of the word capitalism. Tomorrow I’m posting the first article in a series of the history of the word, and begin by giving a short history of it’s existence, which leads me to a question -
(1) Do you have any evidence that the private ownership of profit producing capital existed more than four hundred years ago? (2) What do you think Capital is? What do you think Capitalism is?
Most economic historians I've read say that for most of human history there wasn’t private ownership of major capital, that there wasn’t even money to make revenue or interest from capital, and prior to money and states there wasn’t much trade between individuals (it was primarily between tribes). (3) Do you dispute this?
Although I’m not a Marxist and have some fundamental disagreements with Marx, I see him as primarily an observer and commentator, with some interesting insights. However, he didn’t lead any revolutions and didn’t overthrow any governments himself, so I'm surprised at your anger toward him. (4) But you think he is more evil than Hitler?
I also don’t understand your particular objections to his idea of alienation. (5) Are you saying that you believe that most workers are engaged in their work, feel fulfilled, and believe they are well supported, and well remunerated? (6) Do you think that Socialist artists & engineers didn’t share their work and discoveries with the world? What about Einstein who was a Socialist?
Of course there is evidence of private property 400 years ago and way further back. The ships that Columbus sailed were “owned” as private property. When a man goes into the forest and fashioned a tool it became his private property. The native Americans used various mediums of exchange such as wampum (c. 1510) for trade. Below is non-exhaustive list of mediums of exchange.
9000 - 6000 B.C.: Cattle. ...
1200 B.C.: Cowrie Shells. ...
1000 B.C.: First Metal Money and Coins. ...
500 B.C.: Modern Coinage. ...
118 B.C.: Leather Money. ...
A.D. 800 - 900: The Nose. ...
806: Paper Currency.
Private property’s existence should not be in question. Rather, when did civilizations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question.
Daniel, I wasn't talking about private property itself, but 'capital' in the economic sense, which is something someone owns that makes an income from its existence.
You are right that 'when did civilisations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question' and that is the question I start with in the article I'm posting today. Capitalism requires private ownership of capital and that is a very recent change (1850s-70s in the UK).
You are again proving my point for me with the Columbus example: Columbus' ships were owned by the Spanish monarchy, specifically Queen Isabella. Likewise, before the 1800s in almost every nation state everything ultimately belonged to the king / emperor (and to lords / chiefs on a smaller level).
Neither is money capitalism, money can exist without it, although capitalism historically has relied upon it to exist. When it comes to the (ceremonial) trading of shells or of tribes trading cattle this was not capital and not capitalism. I'd encourage you to read 'David Graeber's 5000 Years Of Debt' to learn more about the history of money. But there was 195,000 years of human history without money (I'd argue the Sumerians invented it around 3000 BC).
My simple suggestion is that you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell or for a fuller understanding of economics: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Every worker is a capitalist—skilled or unskilled. According to Mises, “capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions, which include private property in the means of production (i.e. land, labor, and capital) and freedom of contract under the rule of law.”
It seems to me that Von Mises' definition proves my point - 'capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions' Some of these institutions have only been around for 2-300 years, and they did not exist under Feudalism.
We seem to have a fundamentally different approach to where wealth comes from - I would encourage you to read Kropotkin's 'Our Riches' if you'd like to understand a different view - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/our-riches
Capitalism is not free trade. It’s about capital, not trade. Please do read Marx. Capitalism is 1) the dumbing down of artisanal labour by division of labour 2) the automation of the most dumbed down parts of labour by large scale capital investment. This is extremely productive, but puts the worker into a worse negotiating position than artisanal labour.
Oh by the way, you don’t win arguments by denigrating people or their work. If you’ve read Sowell and Mises and disagree or can invalidate their work so be it, but it’s a sign of weakness to say they are “not serious economists.”
Yet you didn't have any problem whatsoever with dismissing Marx as an ‘evil’ man with ‘bad’ ideas. Ideas that you at least partially agree with, as based on your definition with the means of production above, a phrase Marx certainly popularised if not coined.
Capitalism or free trade has always been part of human existence. It’s like gravity or other Universal Laws: they are there whether or not you know it. But you are correct that Capitalism as a known economics system was not well understood in Smith’s day but it was known as trade. And as such it was poorly understood until Adam Smith. And yes like most college professors today Smith was wary of businessmen in general. As for Marx, no man has done more evil in the world than he from his bad ideas. The idea that workers are alienated from the finished products of their labor has been misused and continues to be misused to justify terrible actions by men and governments. “No one knows how to make a pencil”, but the artist and engineer and scientist have never hesitated to use one and share great ideas and discoveries with the world.
Daniel, You seem to be using a very broad definition of the word capitalism. Tomorrow I’m posting the first article in a series of the history of the word, and begin by giving a short history of it’s existence, which leads me to a question -
(1) Do you have any evidence that the private ownership of profit producing capital existed more than four hundred years ago? (2) What do you think Capital is? What do you think Capitalism is?
Most economic historians I've read say that for most of human history there wasn’t private ownership of major capital, that there wasn’t even money to make revenue or interest from capital, and prior to money and states there wasn’t much trade between individuals (it was primarily between tribes). (3) Do you dispute this?
Although I’m not a Marxist and have some fundamental disagreements with Marx, I see him as primarily an observer and commentator, with some interesting insights. However, he didn’t lead any revolutions and didn’t overthrow any governments himself, so I'm surprised at your anger toward him. (4) But you think he is more evil than Hitler?
I also don’t understand your particular objections to his idea of alienation. (5) Are you saying that you believe that most workers are engaged in their work, feel fulfilled, and believe they are well supported, and well remunerated? (6) Do you think that Socialist artists & engineers didn’t share their work and discoveries with the world? What about Einstein who was a Socialist?
Nate,
Of course there is evidence of private property 400 years ago and way further back. The ships that Columbus sailed were “owned” as private property. When a man goes into the forest and fashioned a tool it became his private property. The native Americans used various mediums of exchange such as wampum (c. 1510) for trade. Below is non-exhaustive list of mediums of exchange.
9000 - 6000 B.C.: Cattle. ...
1200 B.C.: Cowrie Shells. ...
1000 B.C.: First Metal Money and Coins. ...
500 B.C.: Modern Coinage. ...
118 B.C.: Leather Money. ...
A.D. 800 - 900: The Nose. ...
806: Paper Currency.
Private property’s existence should not be in question. Rather, when did civilizations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question.
Daniel, I wasn't talking about private property itself, but 'capital' in the economic sense, which is something someone owns that makes an income from its existence.
You are right that 'when did civilisations start to respect the ownership of private property is the better question' and that is the question I start with in the article I'm posting today. Capitalism requires private ownership of capital and that is a very recent change (1850s-70s in the UK).
You are again proving my point for me with the Columbus example: Columbus' ships were owned by the Spanish monarchy, specifically Queen Isabella. Likewise, before the 1800s in almost every nation state everything ultimately belonged to the king / emperor (and to lords / chiefs on a smaller level).
Neither is money capitalism, money can exist without it, although capitalism historically has relied upon it to exist. When it comes to the (ceremonial) trading of shells or of tribes trading cattle this was not capital and not capitalism. I'd encourage you to read 'David Graeber's 5000 Years Of Debt' to learn more about the history of money. But there was 195,000 years of human history without money (I'd argue the Sumerians invented it around 3000 BC).
Nate,
My simple suggestion is that you read Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell or for a fuller understanding of economics: Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. Every worker is a capitalist—skilled or unskilled. According to Mises, “capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions, which include private property in the means of production (i.e. land, labor, and capital) and freedom of contract under the rule of law.”
It seems to me that Von Mises' definition proves my point - 'capitalism is an economic system defined by a particular set of institutions' Some of these institutions have only been around for 2-300 years, and they did not exist under Feudalism.
We seem to have a fundamentally different approach to where wealth comes from - I would encourage you to read Kropotkin's 'Our Riches' if you'd like to understand a different view - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/our-riches
I don't consider Sowell or Von Mises a serious economist, nor do most economists. They are right-wing philosophers, and I disagree with the basic assumptions of their philosophies. Maybe I'll do a review of 'Basic Economics' one of these days, although others economist don't seem to take it seriously - https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/11d652t/is_basic_economics_by_thomas_sowell_a_good_book/
Well then read FA Hayek: Mises was his mentor.
Capitalism is not free trade. It’s about capital, not trade. Please do read Marx. Capitalism is 1) the dumbing down of artisanal labour by division of labour 2) the automation of the most dumbed down parts of labour by large scale capital investment. This is extremely productive, but puts the worker into a worse negotiating position than artisanal labour.
Oh by the way, you don’t win arguments by denigrating people or their work. If you’ve read Sowell and Mises and disagree or can invalidate their work so be it, but it’s a sign of weakness to say they are “not serious economists.”
Yet you didn't have any problem whatsoever with dismissing Marx as an ‘evil’ man with ‘bad’ ideas. Ideas that you at least partially agree with, as based on your definition with the means of production above, a phrase Marx certainly popularised if not coined.