Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Bitchslappers are bitches by the way, whoever you are.

[shyfrog]

I think the true root meaning of capitalism is the act of using ones capital (versus working) to make themselves more capital.

So if you are a true anti-capitalists then you have to either
A: Loan things to people free of charge.
B: Never loan anybody anything.
OR
C: Believe in public ownership of all capital (or at least all capital that can be used to create more capital)

So while I will loan friends tools and occasionally money without charging them I reserve the right to charge them whatever I please (as long as they agree to it of course), this makes me a capitalist.

I've always viewed my talents, time, assets, wealth, and resources as capital. And I invest that capital in things I value in order to raise their value and create more. I definitely don't want the government interfering in how I choose to use my capital. I guess that makes me a capitalist too. 

All this semantic wrangling is just silly.

[John Edward Mercier]

Except with capitalism it was the other way around: The word originally referred to a non-free system—not mercantilism, but the feudalistic factory system created in the 1800s. Then the capitalists themselves conflated the term with the free market in order to hide their true nature and gain support among free marketeers.

Another term for "true" capitalism might be industrial feudalism or industrial manorialism.

References I can read up on you and Jack's original meaning of capitalism?

You could google feudalism.
Its defunct and without definition, but in general a feudalistic society maintained strict class striations... with a change in status dependent upon higher authority, not personal effort.
Sam Walton would never had a chance...

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Lou you're going to confuse folk by using that term..

[Porcupine_in_MA]

You could google feudalism.
Its defunct and without definition, but in general a feudalistic society maintained strict class striations... with a change in status dependent upon higher authority, not personal effort.
Sam Walton would never had a chance...

I'm familiar with feudalism, but not this "original definition of capitalism" that Jeremy and Jack are stating is a fact. I'm interested because it seems out of the blue to me, I've never heard of word "capitalism" associated with feudalist society and mercantilism.

[John Edward Mercier]

Many capitalist have a tendency towards noted philanthropy.
So they arrange for workers to have access to institutions entirely under their control.

For example, you own a mill.
You own the housing.
You on the general store.
You own the school.
You own the church, temple, etc.

Some capitalists went so far as to pay workers with 'credits' that could only be used in their institutions.
The institutions appeared to be, and many times were promoted as philanthropy... when in actuality they were means of financial, social, and physical control much the same as feudalist society.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Many capitalist have a tendency towards noted philanthropy.
So they arrange for workers to have access to institutions entirely under their control.

For example, you own a mill.
You own the housing.
You on the general store.
You own the school.
You own the church, temple, etc.

Some capitalists went so far as to pay workers with 'credits' that could only be used in their institutions.
The institutions appeared to be, and many times were promoted as philanthropy... when in actuality they were means of financial, social, and physical control much the same as feudalist society.

Some capitalists did this, yes. But that to me doesn't define capitalism because some did that. How many went to that extreme compared to big businessmen who just got big because they gave to the folk a product or products that they wanted?

[Pat McCotter]

Lincoln Electric history

How a DownTurn Put One Rust Belt Company's Principles To The Test

[lildog]

Regardless of how you define what, the problem we see today comes down to one thing... government intervention.  And the pro government politicians out there are using their own failures as excuses for more government regulations and oversight.

There's a reason why corporations give huge amounts of money hand over fist to politicians.

There's a reason executives are often the first in line calling to regulate industries (read as help create barriers to entry helping them create government sponsored monopolies).

There's a very good video at the end of this article that helps so the direct correlation between government actions and the problems created in the market...
http://www.nhinsider.com/bill-gnade/2008/9/28/the-new-media-a-devastating-attack-that-you-must-see.html

[John Edward Mercier]

That's corporatism.

[KBCraig]

Lincoln Electric history

How a DownTurn Put One Rust Belt Company's Principles To The Test

Lincoln is one of my favorite examples of how to run a company by appealing to people's most basic job motivation: money. They present the goal and the standards, and employees have great latitude in how to get there.

The piecework and incentive system work great. I read an article some 12-15 years ago that said they had ordinary line workers on the floor making over $120,000 with their bonus.

[John Edward Mercier]

Many capitalist have a tendency towards noted philanthropy.
So they arrange for workers to have access to institutions entirely under their control.

For example, you own a mill.
You own the housing.
You on the general store.
You own the school.
You own the church, temple, etc.

Some capitalists went so far as to pay workers with 'credits' that could only be used in their institutions.
The institutions appeared to be, and many times were promoted as philanthropy... when in actuality they were means of financial, social, and physical control much the same as feudalist society.

Some capitalists did this, yes. But that to me doesn't define capitalism because some did that. How many went to that extreme compared to big businessmen who just got big because they gave to the folk a product or products that they wanted?

Just explaining the meaning... not agreeing with the redefining of capitalism.
Even the people involved in these arrangements did so of their own free will. It was a system of all or nothing... but it was voluntary.

[jaqeboy]

I'm not anti-capitalist.

It's a definition thing - we probably agree on most things.

[jaqeboy]

I know a lot of people are attached to the term, but the use of the term incorrectly to mean "free markets/free exchange" is impossibly indefensible in conversations with people who use the term correctly. It's an in-the-movement thing that makes communication with "the others" impossible. You can't both be right about the meaning. Ayn Rand set the movement back about 2 generations with her banner-waving for "capitalism."

Libertarians are unapologetically liberal and anti-capitalism. If you read too much in-movement stuff that uses the language incorrectly, but you and your in-movement buddies understand each other, you end up more and more led down a path where you're incomprehensible to others, ie, advocating free markets/individual rights and capitalism (immoral elite statist pillagers creating wars worldwide to build empire and steal others' resources) at the same time.

"Modern liberals" are social democrats at the minimum and full-out state socialists at the max (ie, they are not liberal) and modern conservatives are fascists (pro- big business, no matter what, ie, not interested in individual rights or libertarian issues) and war-mongering nationalists, or even pro-empire.

All I see you saying here Jack, is that I (and others that use the term capitalism synonimously with free market) are wrong because the majority have confused the term with mercantilism in modern culture. This is the same argument I've seen from folk about suddenly not using the term "libertarian" because now folk are confused by it connecting it to Bob Barrianism. Sorry, but "capitalism" and "libertarianism"/"libertarian" have real meanings and I'm not going to change language because some statists are trying to co-opt them or because some are confused by them.

I totally agree - the words have real meanings. Some are conservatives and call themselves libertarian, and lipstick just doesn't work on that pig, and they go around giving libertarians a bad name.

Some are for free markets and call themselves capitalists - they equally confuse their listeners and give the belief in freedom and free markets a bad name by associating those pro-freedom beliefs with capitalists (anti-freedom scoundrels, cartelists and monopolists), who are the people that took over America's money system through legislation (Federal Reserve Act) and want to get an insane amount of money out of the people's hides (the current bailout bills).

[jaqeboy]

No.
Capitalism has never had a feudalist system... nor has it had true monopolies.
Even during the time of the railroad and robber barons.

These same people would claim that PSNH had a monopoly in NH... never did.
Individuals could have made their own power, PSNH just provided it cheaper... so they opted not to.

Rockefeller and group controlled the railways... people and cargo were and are today free to move by horse and wagon. Just because the railway was more efficient did not make it a monopoly... just a free market choice.

Much as you would like it not to be true the early capitalists preferred as feudal-like of a system as they could get. They were mostly aristocrats who were morphing into the industrial era and finance capitalists (who got their unearned wealth from the central banking scam in England). And in England they (the capitalists) sought cartels and monopolies as well (Adam Smith commented on it) - Parliament and the Royals often granted them.

PSNH is a regional monopoly which was promoted by the capitalists (Morgan and gang) - the chief lobbyist for that being Samuel Insull

from Wikipedia:
As more people became connected to the electric grid, Insull's company [Commonwealth Edison], which had an exclusive franchise [monopoly] from the city, grew steadily.
...
As a result of owning all these diverse companies, Insull is credited with being one of the early proponents for regulation of industry  [to whose benefit, eh?]. He saw that federal and state regulation would recognize electric utilities as natural monopolies[!], allowing them to grow with little competition [how convenient, eh?] and to sell electricity to broader segments of the market.

The utilities as nicey nice guys who just did a better job in the market just doesn't hold historical water.

The railroad history is just too involved to go into here, but maybe a separate thread could be devoted to just the capitalists, the Congress, the state legislatures and the railroads.

PS: There's a good book on Insull and the lobbying effort to make utilities monopolies, but I can't remember the title of it. I'll ask my friend who first turned me on to it and has a copy of it.