Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[jaqeboy]

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 guess we disagree on the definition somewhat.

One working definition (Think monarchism means the monarch has the ism  ) would be a system where the people that have the capital have power over the political process. In our case, a class of people that took over the money system through central banking in England, Europe and now America have a huge leg up on possession of the capital of the world (by stealing from all the people through the central banking system scam) and they use it (the capital) to control the political process to loot the people some more and send them to wars to grab other peoples' resources and capital (imperialism). Then they buy up all the media outlets and control the schools to tell the people that we live in freedom and democracy.

I do believe Cobden (an early user of the terms) did often refer to the people who put capital up to start a company as "capitalists" also.

Re your A, B & C above, Someone who loans things to people would either be a banker or a friend, but not a capitalist; a banker who loaned at no interest probably wouldn't remain in business; a banker who didn't loan out anything ought to close the business to save on overhead costs; and, C doesn't seem to fit anywhere in my working definition above or in yours.

[jaqeboy]

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.

Right, similar results, without the official class structure and rank.

[jaqeboy]

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?

Right, this is where our power of discernment comes in. We can identify who used their capital to influence/control the political process in their favor (what Howe calls monopolists) and some used it to develop, manufacture and market better products that people wanted. I heard on a program yesterday about a fiscally conservative bank who was still stable and isn't asking for a government bailout, while you also hear about banks that took huge risks and now want to be "bailed out" because their risks didn't pan out.

I didn't start this thread to get into the defiinition of capitalism and why libertarians oppose it and favor the rights of the people - that should probably be a separate thread. I was just bringing up the article that refers to Howe's old work "Confessions of a Monopolist" to give context for this current bailout proposal, where the "capitalists" realize that "the best of all business is politics, for a legislative grant, franchise, subsidy or tax exemption is worth more than a Kimberley or Comstock."

[jaqeboy]

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?

I have been meaning to do the necessary extensive research on the usages of the word over time and put it into a paper, but, in short, my gripe is with all the in-movement usage that ignores historical usage and usage of others outside the movement. Then, going around favoring "capitalists" and "capitalism" publicly makes it look like "libertarians are for imperialism, central banking, war, buying (regulatory or monopolistic) legislation, etc. They're "ruining it for the rest of us (that believe in freedom and free markets)."

[jaqeboy]

Or, as Michael Moore says:

"..After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets
of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years,
after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune
of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years,
Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House
-- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab.."

[ByronB]

I guess we disagree on the definition somewhat.

One working definition (Think monarchism means the monarch has the ism  ) would be a system where the people that have the capital have power over the political process. In our case, a class of people that took over the money system through central banking in England, Europe and now America have a huge leg up on possession of the capital of the world (by stealing from all the people through the central banking system scam) and they use it (the capital) to control the political process to loot the people some more and send them to wars to grab other peoples' resources and capital (imperialism). Then they buy up all the media outlets and control the schools to tell the people that we live in freedom and democracy.

I do believe Cobden (an early user of the terms) did often refer to the people who put capital up to start a company as "capitalists" also.

I think that the problem is that the word "capitalism" has been adopted by way to many people... my definition of it is closer to the definition of "capitalist" (not capitalism) although I think that the "ism" form of capital should be awfully similar to the "ist" form of capital.

Re your A, B & C above, Someone who loans things to people would either be a banker or a friend, but not a capitalist; a banker who loaned at no interest probably wouldn't remain in business; a banker who didn't loan out anything ought to close the business to save on overhead costs; and, C doesn't seem to fit anywhere in my working definition above or in yours.

Sorry, I didn't make this clear enough... these were my examples of how to NOT be a capitalist (by my definition) in today's world.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Or, as Michael Moore says:

"..After stealing a half trillion dollars to line the pockets
of their war-profiteering backers for the past five years,
after lining the pockets of their fellow oilmen to the tune
of over a hundred billion dollars in just the last two years,
Bush and his cronies -- who must soon vacate the White House
-- are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab.."

Well he is right about that. At least he is only partially endowed with shit.

[John Edward Mercier]

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).

The original members of the Federal Reserve already had all the money. The Morgans bought the nation out of debt more than once.
The reason they wished to create the federal reserve was to limit fractional reserve lending. Something you can only do through contract, or direct violation of the US Constitution.

[John Edward Mercier]

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.

To be a true monopoly means that no other competition or option exists.
The Moulton family, Fernald family, and my family originally all made our own power... and did so during the time of our business operations.
Obviously not a great monopoly!

[Porcupine_in_MA]

To be a true monopoly means that no other competition or option exists.
The Moulton family, Fernald family, and my family originally all made our own power... and did so during the time of our business operations.
Obviously not a great monopoly!

So you were able to make your own power and compete with the main utilities company? I'm blanking on it's name at the moment. I didn't know there was more than one ulitilities company in NH. Or if there was there is one more. Definitely not a free market in power generation.

[John Edward Mercier]

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 guess we disagree on the definition somewhat.

One working definition (Think monarchism means the monarch has the ism  ) would be a system where the people that have the capital have power over the political process. In our case, a class of people that took over the money system through central banking in England, Europe and now America have a huge leg up on possession of the capital of the world (by stealing from all the people through the central banking system scam) and they use it (the capital) to control the political process to loot the people some more and send them to wars to grab other peoples' resources and capital (imperialism). Then they buy up all the media outlets and control the schools to tell the people that we live in freedom and democracy.

I do believe Cobden (an early user of the terms) did often refer to the people who put capital up to start a company as "capitalists" also.

Re your A, B & C above, Someone who loans things to people would either be a banker or a friend, but not a capitalist; a banker who loaned at no interest probably wouldn't remain in business; a banker who didn't loan out anything ought to close the business to save on overhead costs; and, C doesn't seem to fit anywhere in my working definition above or in yours.

That is corporatism or mercantilism.

And central banking is not a postitive to capitalists, it is the demand of the politicians to have control over the system in a manner that meets their founding documents.
The Industrialist grew out of the period prior to the Federal Reserve Act.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States

[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.

Right, similar results, without the official class structure and rank.

There was an official class structure and rank...
Even today corporations have official class structure and rank... just not the total life choice control.

[John Edward Mercier]

Most of this is no longer possible, because the Austrian School of Economics has been replace with the Chicago School. Sort of like replacing Newtonian Gravity with Theoretical Gravity... damn Einstein and Friedman.

We no longer measure the elastic value of labor with a nearly finite substance.

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

This could be a definition of capitalism—if the word hadn't already been coined in the 1800s to refer to the non–free market system that it does. As a comparison, the term national socialism could refer to any group of people who are socialistic and nationalistic, but the term was already coined decades ago to refer to a specific group of people who's actual beliefs and practices include much more than just nationalism and socialism.

[John Edward Mercier]

To be a true monopoly means that no other competition or option exists.
The Moulton family, Fernald family, and my family originally all made our own power... and did so during the time of our business operations.
Obviously not a great monopoly!

So you were able to make your own power and compete with the main utilities company? I'm blanking on it's name at the moment. I didn't know there was more than one ulitilities company in NH. Or if there was there is one more. Definitely not a free market in power generation.

Currently several power suppliers, and a couple of distribution networks.