Capitalism is worse. Kings were chosen by accident of birth. CEOs are chosen through a contest where the most inhuman psychopath wins.
Capitalism is worse. Kings were chosen by accident of birth. CEOs are chosen through a contest where the most inhuman psychopath wins.
You're viewing part of a thread.
The thing about ideologies is they don't have to be achievable. They should teach that part in High School, but they don't. Where you and whoever is telling you this with a .edu is failing is you're not considering how the stocks are operating. You're confusing Capital with Capitalism. You could hold those stocks, and get money from them. But you didn't have control over anything. Only the people who were chartered by the crown had that control. There was no private control over trade, and many countries had domestic monopolies as well that operated in the same way. Crown chartered corporations were the hot thing in Mercantilism.
So this is why Free Trade became such a big thing, along with private property, and Utilitarianism. The entirety of the British, French, Dutch, and Spanish Colonial Empires operated under these rules. So when a philosopher in 1760 says says we should have free trade he means he should be able to export cotton from the Carolinas to France instead of England. But not only is he not allowed to do that, the British East Indies Company will pay him a visit with a warship and a company of armed men to arrest him as a smuggler.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange. The problem is the first Stock exchange operated in the 1600's, 17th century, which is Early Modern Era. But as I said above those stocks were in Crown Chartered Corporations which are operating as branches of the government. It's 100 years before stocks really take off and for that entire time they're still chartered. Because it was illegal to make your own corporation in the 17th century and about half of the 18th century. Which is when Adam Smith starts ranting about Mercantilism and he and David Hume are really cooking up Capitalism. So I'm not sure how you're getting that Capitalism started directly after Feudalism unless you're reading the wreck of a Wiki page that can't decide if it was then or the golden age of the Middle East, or the Greek Philosophers.
There are certainly elements of Capitalism earlier, but the ideology does not emerge until the industrial revolution.
You "it can't be capitalism, as a the markets weren't free enough to be glorious free trade"
Me "Free trade has never existed and could never exist "
Also you "The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable."
Well, you can't argue with that logic.
That .edu would be just about every .edu there is but sure, even though you misused basic terminology, of course you know better than all of them.
Of course you do!
No, I'm not confusing capital with capitalism. Thats a lazy response that shows you didn't understand what was said to you.
Yes, you would have control over "things" and royal charters were to hand out monopolies to some joint stock companies, not all, as many didn't need them due to the freedom of trade they had. There's also no such things as a crown chartered corporation.
You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange.
As I said above, you had no idea what was said to you and it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about here either but that doesnt seem to be stopping you. Nope, it barely even slowed you down. This might help: j
oint stock company =/= a stock exchange.
There wouldn't have been enough exchanges of stock to justify a dedicated stock exchange, at the start, now would there? It would be a weird thing to have, right at the beginning, dont you think?
David hume wrote about capitalism, within capitalism, according to David hume. I know you think you know better than practicality every university and wiki too but I doubt even that level of arrogance could make someone believe they know David hume better than David hume. Also, preindustrial capitalism exists. So, we can dismiss that, without a second thought.
Much like capitalism, merchantislism started before you seem to think it did. The acts of enclosure were the death throws of the last part of feudalism, within a mercantile economy, in much the same way that you can have socialised housing, within a capitalist economy.
So, you can't actually say what change ushered in capitalism. Its just that you don't like how it came to be or the baggage it has to carry. So, instead, despite the existence of capitalist vehicles of enterprise, we're to believe that capitalism didn't come into existence until about sometime around the labour reforms where it was presumably baptised, to wash away its prior sins.
Apparently, unlike wiki and all those stupid universities, it seems that capitalism came into being when we all beleived in glorious free trade hard enough for it to be immaculately convinced as the natural economy we were always meant to have.
At least it can now be seen that you confused "capitalism" with "industrial capitalism."
You know if I hadn't gone to real, actual college for politics and economics I might be swayed by your... argument style. For example you clearly don't know the first stock exchange had stock only for the Dutch East India Company. So named because they were chartered by the Dutch Government. They were also one of the earliest Joint Stock Companies. And the time periods of Renaissance and Early Modern Era certainly aren't in dispute.
You should also know that David Hume's writings are available online. Funny thing is, as far as I can tell he didn't use the word capitalism once. It's kind of hard to write additions to an existing ideology without using it's name. In fact Capitalism as a name is given in 1850, by Socialists who are attacking the system. Going back to Adam Smith and David Hume is because they were writing about changing the economic system, and their writings were largely adopted.
About ideologies needing popular approval, that's kind of how that works. As much as they might wish it, philosophers cannot make an ideology a popular movement on a whim. And yeah, the wiki page cites a book review by The Economist, which talks about banking in Florence. and if Banking is it then we, again, have to go back to ancient Mesopotamia, and Capitalism has no definition because it always was and always will be. Don't trust Wikipedia, just don't. You're always going to find some horrible stuff in the sources.
I said before that elements of Capitalism existed before the main ideology of it. Like any other ideology; economic, political, or personal, it stands on the shoulders of the systems that came before it.
You should get your money back.
He critiqued the system he was in. That economic system hasn't changed until now. I don't even know what to say to your rebuttal being that he didn't coin the phrase. That was just sad to read.
Take it up with the universities you disagree with, as you seem to think you know better than them.
Its not just Wikipedia and you have shown yourself to know less than half of whats needed to attempt to correct them on this subject.
You just don't like the origin of capitalism and that's not the same as virtually all the universities and wiki being wrong and you being right, despite misusing basic terminology around the subject.
Also, no, even if it was just one kind of stock, a dedicated exchange wouldn't be needed, if only one joint stock company existed. So, the idea that the creation of the first stock exchange happened at the same time as the whole idea is being birthed is just bizzare. The Dutch east India company was made in 1602 in which was the invention of share capital, hence that being when capitalism was starting.
Also also the stock exchange you mentioned existed before 1623, as there are bonds traded at that exchange recorded then. So, you've disagreed with yourself there.
Thats why we go with wiki and no just vibes. They should've taught you that at that college you went to.
Okay well you're just literally making shit up about what I said now. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one who has shown any actual source material or evidenced any tracking of sources. You have obviously read the wiki, confused its ideological edit war as a university somehow, and are just resorting to ad hominems at this point.
If a university agrees with you in any more than the most general sense of elements of capitalism pre-existing Adam Smith please feel free to show us. They aren't shy about leaving knowledge around for people to pick up and use. Otherwise stop being an ass. Nobody likes a confident ass much less one who's just so wrong.
You literally think you know better than wiki, thinking you know better and confidently claimed so, despite misusing basic terminology around the subject. You commnet is nothing other than a lack of self awareness, drawing in irony.
You:
Which is when Adam Smith starts ranting about Mercantilism and he and David Hume are really cooking up Capitalism
Also you, the link you sent
Adam Smith is often identified as the father of modern capitalism. While accurate to some extent, this description is both overly simplistic and dangerously misleading.
I'm embarrassed for you.
Nobody likes a confident ass much less one who’s just so wrong.
Exactly, take your own advice and fuck off and get your money back from that university.
Did... Did you read the whole link? Or just the snip the part that sounds like it supports your argument?
And yes, if you can't do better than the wiki then you didn't get a college education on a topic. It's an encyclopedia, not a 4 year degree with several thousand hours of learning. And that's when it's working well. This article has been cut to shit by ideologues trying to revise history for their own benefit.
You thought you were going to show up here 3 weeks later and leave some kind of last word discrediting my education when I'm the one pulling the .edu links for you to look at. The fucking irony.
As you clearly read none of it, I only had to read the first part, as that disproved your nonsense straight away which can be seen by your own words and your own link.
I don't need to do better than wiki. You haven't disproven them. You just declared them to be shit, thinking your arrogance alone can refute what it says. You university should've taught you to actually quote specific parts of articles and not just link their entirety, declaring them to agree with you despite it disproving you within the first couple of sentences.
The edu link disproved you, instantly. So, that's literally exactly what happened. Its not my fault you made a clown out of yourself by proving yourself wrong. I wish you hadn't done it too. Its taken the sport out of it.
Buddy. I did read it. Go back. Read it. Internalize it.
Child, you claimed Adam Smith was "cooking up Capitalism" and then provided a link that opened up by saying that claims like that are gross over simplification. Doubling down on saying you read it only makes you look even more stupid. I mean, you didn't even know that pre-industrial Capitalism existed ffs. Id be too ashamed to reply if I was you.
Just to head off your next commnet: no, weaponsed ignorance and professional grade arrogance do not qualify as a cogent rebuttal but I am looking forward to you attempting to singlehandedly refute das kapital again.
First, a gross over simplification describes the entirety of discourse on Lemmy. That's the format, and unless you want to start writing multiple actual papers every day I wouldn't complain about it.
Second, the gross over simplification they refer to is Adam Smith as merely the first economist. They go on to explain his entire body of work in philosophy, politics, and economics.
And no, my claim is that it wasn't capitalism yet. In the same way that we still have some of the same laws as we did under kings, but that wasn't democracy yet.
And the irony here is breathtaking. This is literally my field of study. And you read the first snippet and then start yelling about "weaponized ignorance". If you want to disagree then disagree but don't be so ignorant you project it into others.