Viewing last 25 versions of comment by Cirrus Light on image #1518472

"[@Aristagtle":](/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq])  

> Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq]
Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.


 
A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.


 
By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.




 

 
As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).


 
In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".


 
And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.


 
Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.


 
Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might motivate people to work and produce capital and do services?


 
But though natural selection doesn't make it right, that it exists as an intimate, unremovable (without major changes to human behavior) part of the freedoms to buy, sell, own, produce, and make agreements, does make it right.



"
 

 
[@rylasasin":](/1518472#comment_6482059
)  
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.


 
But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.


 
Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.


 
If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.




 

 
And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.


 
Graduated taxes and welfare, then, are a way of transferring some of that means of production (capital) to the people who lack it. From them according to "their ability" and to them according to their "need."


 
Yet we have a free market as well, so our system is really a blend. We haven't totally collapsed yet because there's still incentive for people to work usually.


 
Usually.


 
I have another friend who lost federal aid because they took a short summer temp job, but because the job paid well for what short time it lasted, it counted, and he ended up not getting aid, so he made less money that year because he worked. Grats, government.


 
Do we really need more of that? Do you think de-incentivising work is how you produce more wealth to go around?

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might motivate people to work and produce capital and do services?

But though natural selection doesn't make it right, that it exists as part of the freedoms to buy, sell, own, produce, and make agreements, does make it right.



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

Graduated taxes and welfare, then, are a way of transferring some of that means of production (capital) to the people who lack it. From them according to "their ability" and to them according to their "need."

Yet we have a free market as well, so our system is really a blend. We haven't totally collapsed yet because there's still incentive for people to work usually.

Usually.

I have another friend who lost federal aid because they took a short summer temp job, but because the job paid well for what short time it lasted, it counted, and he ended up not getting aid, so he made less money that year because he worked. Grats, government.

Do we really need more of that? Do you think de-incentivising work is how you produce more wealth to go around?

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might motivate people to work and produce capital and do services?



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

Graduated taxes and welfare, then, are a way of transferring some of that means of production (capital) to the people who lack it. From them according to "their ability" and to them according to their "need."

Yet we have a free market as well, so our system is really a blend. We haven't totally collapsed yet because there's still incentive for people to work usually.

Usually.

I have another friend who lost federal aid because they took a short summer temp job, but because the job paid well for what short time it lasted, it counted, and he ended up not getting aid, so he made less money that year because he worked. Grats, government.

Do we really need more of that? Do you think de-incentivising work is how you produce more wealth to go around?

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might motivate people to work and produce capital and do services?



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

Graduated taxes and welfare, then, are a way of transferring some of that means of production (capital) to the people who lack it. From them according to "their ability" and to them according to their "need."

Yet we have a free market as well, so our system is really a blend. We haven't totally collapsed yet because there's still incentive for people to work usually.

Usually.

I have another friend who lost federal aid because they took a short summer temp job, but because the job paid well for what short time it lasted, it counted, and he ended up not getting aid, so he made less money that year because he worked. Grats, government.

Do we really need more of that?

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might motivate people to work and produce capital and do services?



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

Graduated taxes and welfare, then, are a way of transferring some of that means of production (capital) to the people who lack it. From them according to "their ability" and to them according to their "need."

Yet we have a free market as well, so our system is really a blend. We haven't totally collapsed yet because there's still incentive for people to work usually.

Usually.

I have another friend who lost federal aid because they took a short summer temp job, but because the job paid well for what short time it lasted, it counted, and he ended up not getting aid, so he made less money because he worked. Grats, government.

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might motivate people to work and produce capital and do services?



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

Graduated taxes and welfare, then, are a way of transferring some of that means of production (capital) to the people who lack it. From them according to "their ability" and to them according to their "need."

Yet we have a free market as well, so our system is really a blend.

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might drmotivate people to work and produce capital and do services?



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.

Natural selection doesn't make it right, but it does show it makes the most powerful nations and economies. China realized this and is communist in name only. Soviets, Cubans, Venezualians, Jonestown, hippy communes, they all suffered shortages and often starved.

Think there might actually be something to the incentive of making money that might drive people to work?



"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstarter.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1. And as a result, their currency became trash because of economics and how banking works, so they blamed the "Jewish bankers".

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.




"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstartetr.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1.

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.




"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.

"@Aristagtle":/1518472#comment_6482030
[bq]Tell me again how these things involve partial workers’ ownership of the means of production[/bq] Because in an open market where you can buy land, factories, and people's labor by hiring them, "the means of production" isn't factories, but the money you use to buy factories and pay workers.

A friend of mine actually started making and selling socks like this by paying a factory in China. He owns a small piece of the means of production, and did it on what I think is like a few thousand dollars or less that he got from a Kickstartet.

By taking money from people who make more and giving it to people who make less, you're giving that economic power to produce to the poor. That friend of mine is a concrete example of how redistributing capital can equate to giving partial ownership.



As for the issue of economic crisis, the point isn't that it doesn't happen. But it's not as bad as you say. Not all recessions like the housing bubble cause Nazis to rise (they rose in a depression far worse than any the US has ever seen, where you'd literally have to use a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread).

In fact, what gave rise to the Nazis wasn't even a free market. It was war debts and crappy government response that crashed the value of their money. So it was state interference, and other nations forcing them to pay for WW1.

And it's related to the point because I'm saying that there's not a better system. No better system has ever succeeded. Like it or not, free market has won by natural selection as the most powerful economic system, and to humanity's great fortune, it's far more conducive to a free society than one where the government is given enough power to control everyone's lives as is necessary to seize shareholder's assets by force.




"@rylasasin":/1518472#comment_6482059
Attributing a saying isn't meant to be an argument. It's meant to be honest and informative so you don't think I came up with it.

But "Capitalism != markets" isn't an argument, either.

Capitalism comes from free markets naturally, just like fruit comes from a plant. If you give people the rights I mentioned, then they form favorable arrangements that get increasingly complex and efficient that we call "companies". Just look at the word "company". It's an association of people who are making agreements to help each other make money.

If I like to mow lawns and I have those freedoms, I'll start asking people to help for some pay, ask for money to mow lawns for people, maybe get some people to try to get the word out so more people will pay me to mow their lawn - but those people are specialists skilled at getting the word out and want to be paid, so on and so forth.



And yes, it is partial socialism because it's redistribution of wealth, which is really what "the means of production" really is. The means of production is assets, a form of capital or wealth. If you have capital, you can produce, or buy the assets to produce.