 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
No. This is not what it says. Where in my statement do you find this word "power"?
When I use the term surplus wealth (and I can sure know better as to what you mean when you use the term) I mean that there no exists more things that are required for survival than those things that are required for survival, and I can measure that surplus of those things that are required for survival in some accurate way that can be called Purchasing Power.
So whatever you mean, when you use that term, can be accurately communicated to me in English if English can serve as tool for that expressed purpose.
This corporation operates...
You might as well be on Mars and I am moroned on some distant asteroid as far as those three words go, and that may have some connection to the lack of words required to convey an accurate measure of surplus wealth, but I don't know.
I think we can find out where we part on the fence.
It only states that it is part of the principle of capitalism.
I am going to offer to you my understanding of the principle of capitalism and I won't use my own words.
Here:
Wait, before I find these words I want to express in English symbols a perception I have concerning what I think is true compared to what I know is true. I know that perception exists, and other than that I am guessing, and therefore this effort to convey accurate meaning on the genuine definition of capitalism is futile, since it requires agreement in order for the meaning to mean anything along the lines of communicating accurately. I can be wrong; on other words, in your field of vision, and I know that going into the effort.
Here:
Menger on Capitalism:
Carl Menger
Here human self-interest finds an incentive to make itself felt, and where the available quantity does not suffice for all, every individual will attempt to secure his own requirements as completely as possible to the exclusion of others.
We saw that economic goods are goods whose available quantities are smaller than the requirements for them. Wealth can therefore also be defined as the entire sum of goods at an economizing individual’s command, the quantities of which are smaller than the requirements for them. Hence, if there were a society where all goods were available in amounts exceeding the requirements for them, there would be no economic goods nor any “wealth.”
Your words:
"And this statement does not say that the standard of living is actually increased. It only states that it is part of the principle of capitalism." Mike (or the perception I have of this nebulous being called Mike) 4/14/203
This statement:
This corporation operates on the principles of capitalism which is to say it takes an initial capital and reinvests that capital to make more capital etc. to increase it's surplus wealth and thereby increase the standard of living of its members. (believe it or not this includes the workforce)
The workforce are the targets, and if you feel like joining them, have at it, and who am I to rain on your parade?
I am nobody.
But, please leave me out of it entirely.
Please, pretty please, with sugar on top.
My statement is only a restatement of the definition of capitalism and nothing more.
I see no such thing, but a Mike's dictionary is begging to be created and that can happen right here on this forum, if you are willing to do so, and I can't put words in your mouth, so the end result will have to be you agreeing to the working definition of capitalism as you intend to use that word.
I have had a working definition of capitalism working for me for some time now, probably decades, and it is this:
Capitalism: A pricing scheme
I can elaborate on the specifics of the pricing scheme that is capitalism and I can go into great detail. If you are going to use a word, that you call capitalism, and then you are going to intend to convey to me something that I may be able to use to be better than I am today, then I need specifics, and I don't need ambiguities.
Please.
it takes an initial capital and reinvests that capital to make more capital
Please: what is it?
Is it a legal fiction, a legal person, an entity that is not an individual human being?
I would like to know what you perceive it to be, please.
I am searching for a better system.
I found this:
Equitable Commerce
It is a competitive pricing method.
Does this clear things up ? Can you get past this piece now?
As if I have not been here years ago, contemplating the meaning of capitalism, according to the authorities of it.
Please consider setting aside any other definition of capitalism other than your own working definition, and we can find use of that term, in mutual agreement, and then we may proceed.
Or not, since I am merely fabricating this notion of perception, and in reality who knows what is happening? Certainly not me?