Where can I find this arbitrary definition of capitalism? Because barters and lemonade in a free market stands still sounds like capitalism to me, just on a smaller scale. Just because it seems more sympathetic doesn’t mean it’s not the same thing.
Im not saying that what you describe in your first paragraph isn’t bad, but words have meaning. If you intend to spread your thoughts on them, you’d do well to go beyond “capitalism bad mkay” because it makes people take your thoughts less seriously. So you end up preaching to the choir who’s already on your side and we’ve learned from reddit, Twitter and Fox that echo chambers are bad.
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Careful with that rhetorical question or they’ll bring out a bunch of nutjobs books and ask you to read through untested and unrealistic theory from the past hundred years and then call you unintellectual for choosing the dictionary and textbook definitions over their pseudoscience.
Lemonade stands do not create silicon, or the equivalent of inventing the lemon. The vendor is irrelevant to the product itself.
You’d still have tech up until around 1996 CMOS technology. That is when things got stupid expensive beyond what bureaucratic nonsense would invest in. Neither the Soviets or Chinese were capable of recognising the implications of silicon and competing. It made the Soviet Union obsolete from an outdated military driven economy. Watch the computer history museum’s interviews of the people that were involved at the top of semiconductors and you will clearly see how this is what won the cold war and why.
William Shockley was the principal person that first understood how, for the first time in human history, a commercial endeavor would have exponential growth potential so strong that no military could afford to fund it by itself.
That era is over now BTW. We are less than 10 years out from the final fab node, and the real world hardware cycle is actually 10 years. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but that is likely the reason politics are shifting to a posture similar to the era of William Shockley, and the global trade required to support that exponential growth is no longer as relevant.
Authoritarian and bureaucratic systems never manage to lead in such unprecedented endeavors. At best, all they do is follow.
Capitalism is the lesser (but still quite) evil system. The only thing that actually matters is meritocracy. Bureaucracy lacks the meritocratic impetus to filter and motivate real leaders free from cronyism. In the present world, places like China have far better capitalism for the average person that cares about lemonade stands. But I don’t want to live in 1996, or 1896, or 1696 with people that plow with oxen and 15 kids running a lemonade stand, like would be the case without evil capitalism. The problem in the present is the lack of real capitalism. People do not take responsibility for their purchase vote, and governments are corrupted by an oligarchy.
When a real AGI exists and is capable of persistence and omnipresence, then we have solved the succession crisis to finally have a benevolent altruistic system capable of wielding trust. Humans are incapable of wielding trust in politics. The occasional ultra rare exception of incorruptible leadership that is altruistic, benevolent, and self deprecating is always followed by a succession crisis.
Trust is surrender of democracy to fascists and authoritarians. Skepticism, free information, and the right to error with full nonviolent autonomy are the antitheses of anyone peddling the fallacy of trust.
creation of a surplus of devices, through exploitation, for the purposes of profit is capitalism.
just buying stuff is just markets. barters and lemonade stands are not capitalist.
Where can I find this arbitrary definition of capitalism? Because barters and lemonade in a free market stands still sounds like capitalism to me, just on a smaller scale. Just because it seems more sympathetic doesn’t mean it’s not the same thing.
Im not saying that what you describe in your first paragraph isn’t bad, but words have meaning. If you intend to spread your thoughts on them, you’d do well to go beyond “capitalism bad mkay” because it makes people take your thoughts less seriously. So you end up preaching to the choir who’s already on your side and we’ve learned from reddit, Twitter and Fox that echo chambers are bad.
from wikipedia, for instance, with my highlights:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their use for the purpose of obtaining profit. This socioeconomic system has developed historically through several stages and is defined by a number of basic constituent elements: private property, profit motive, capital accumulation, competitive markets, commodification, wage labor, and an emphasis on innovation and economic growth.
Careful with that rhetorical question or they’ll bring out a bunch of nutjobs books and ask you to read through untested and unrealistic theory from the past hundred years and then call you unintellectual for choosing the dictionary and textbook definitions over their pseudoscience.
Lemonade stands do not create silicon, or the equivalent of inventing the lemon. The vendor is irrelevant to the product itself.
You’d still have tech up until around 1996 CMOS technology. That is when things got stupid expensive beyond what bureaucratic nonsense would invest in. Neither the Soviets or Chinese were capable of recognising the implications of silicon and competing. It made the Soviet Union obsolete from an outdated military driven economy. Watch the computer history museum’s interviews of the people that were involved at the top of semiconductors and you will clearly see how this is what won the cold war and why.
William Shockley was the principal person that first understood how, for the first time in human history, a commercial endeavor would have exponential growth potential so strong that no military could afford to fund it by itself.
That era is over now BTW. We are less than 10 years out from the final fab node, and the real world hardware cycle is actually 10 years. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but that is likely the reason politics are shifting to a posture similar to the era of William Shockley, and the global trade required to support that exponential growth is no longer as relevant.
Authoritarian and bureaucratic systems never manage to lead in such unprecedented endeavors. At best, all they do is follow.
Capitalism is the lesser (but still quite) evil system. The only thing that actually matters is meritocracy. Bureaucracy lacks the meritocratic impetus to filter and motivate real leaders free from cronyism. In the present world, places like China have far better capitalism for the average person that cares about lemonade stands. But I don’t want to live in 1996, or 1896, or 1696 with people that plow with oxen and 15 kids running a lemonade stand, like would be the case without evil capitalism. The problem in the present is the lack of real capitalism. People do not take responsibility for their purchase vote, and governments are corrupted by an oligarchy.
When a real AGI exists and is capable of persistence and omnipresence, then we have solved the succession crisis to finally have a benevolent altruistic system capable of wielding trust. Humans are incapable of wielding trust in politics. The occasional ultra rare exception of incorruptible leadership that is altruistic, benevolent, and self deprecating is always followed by a succession crisis.
Trust is surrender of democracy to fascists and authoritarians. Skepticism, free information, and the right to error with full nonviolent autonomy are the antitheses of anyone peddling the fallacy of trust.
Humans did invent lemons to enjoy them, though. It was a very large and organized undertaking which led to commercial success for Egypt.
k big lemon
and during a time … before capitalism. ;)
TBH Egypt was everything Communists claim about Capitalism. Idk why you would think otherwise.