I wish I could recall who spoke it, I have heard versions from several scientists. But they often classify “philosophy departments” as the department of nags, fantasy, and wishful speculation all removed heavily from fact and reality. Less deferentially, it is viewed the field of whatever last dregs of human thought failed to grow up into a true science or math while rejecting theology. Even when I listen to or read Rand, I often walk away wondering if it all peaked with the stoics, Maimonides and Aquinas.
Capitalism is a system of class servitude that maintains the existence of a poor working class and elevates a small capitalist class who live on profits made from the labor of the workers. It works by keeping wages low by making sure most people don't own land and pay for land access -- rent or mortgage -- and some are homeless to scare the rest of the workers to keep on working or "there but for the grace of god go ye" -- and it works. It works for keeping the people working for the rich so the rich can live extravagant lives like royalty without having to work themselves.
Not at all. That was an inappropriate response. I guess you have no argument whatsoever to counter what I said about capitalism. Figures. Am I the only living person here?
What you said was just regurgitating Marxist dogma from centuries past and long debunked. It was an entirely appropriate response.
The most capitalist countries were the fastest growing with the fastest rising standard of living. Communist countries were the most stagnant, impoverished (suits the dictators) and miserable, prior to their collapse. Their low capital base and consequently poorly paid workers have attracted a lot of capital investment since, which has spurred great increases in productivity and workers' living standards, but they're really only playing catch up.
Capitalists invest in machinery to raise labour productivity and total production and then actually bid workers' wages up in competing for their labour. Capital accumulation actually aids workers who haven't the chutzpah to save and invest, let alone start and run a business - it serves to raise their wages. What's more, getting more out of fewer workers, allowing a greater proportion of the population to be served, even by fewer workers (ultimately), means even more growth in the total production possibility frontier. Workers made redundant get new jobs making new products not previously economically feasible, meaning there's a greater pool of goods for everyone to consume.
What I said in my initial comment was just straight-up true. People work for money and most people pay rent or mortgage because of how capitalism controls land not as a right but as a commodity. Is this true or not?
Capitalism is class servitude by control of the land and removal of land access as a right, to forcibly extract the labor of the many to go to the few. That’s the violation of fundamental laws of nature, putting people into class slavery.
Really the better source is anything that describes the Enclosures as the removal of people from the land to force our labor and keep wages low. One such book is The Invention of Capitalism by Michael Perelman.
No one is forcing workers into the “factories”. I live in Amish Country where the Amish farm their own food and build much of the furniture they need. There’s plenty of inexpensive land for you (and others) to work for your own needs.
Capitalism forces the bulk of people to sell labor under the onerous conditions that it creates for us, so yes, the whole system *is* indeeed forcing us, by removing our land access then renting it back to us for our labor. And no there is not "plenty of inexpensive land" -- at least not with the meaning of "inexpensive" meaning that most working class people can afford it. There simply is not. We working class people rent or take out a mortgage if we're able to get one. That's not inexpensive.
I certainly agree that inexpensive land is not free—why would it be?
I don’t know anyone who is forced to work. I only know people who voluntarily agree to work for other people for an agreed upon price (a salary or hourly or some other form of compensation). I also know many people who work for themselves and provide goods and services for a price set by the market (the law of supply and demand).
And of course almost all people who buy land must take out a mortgage or some other form of loan (if no structure is on the land). Why is that objectionable?
There is land for sale in the U.S. for less than $1,000 per acre. Below are some examples.
New Mexico: $400 to $4,000 per acre (averaging around $725–$6,000 depending on raw desert vs. market listings). Extreme low-cost parcels can be found in counties like Luna County.
Arizona: $500 to $5,000 per acre (averaging about $4,200 statewide). Inexpensive plots are common in Cochise, Mohave, and Apache counties.
Nevada: $600 to $6,000 per acre. Vast federal land ownership leaves scattered, low-cost private pockets.
Wyoming: Approximately $1,000 to $2,080 per acre for rural and agricultural land.
Montana: Approximately $1,230 to $1,350 per acre.
Mississippi: $3,490 per acre average, offering fertile soil and timber tracts.
Arkansas: Around $3,720 per acre average for diverse rural plots.
I wish I could recall who spoke it, I have heard versions from several scientists. But they often classify “philosophy departments” as the department of nags, fantasy, and wishful speculation all removed heavily from fact and reality. Less deferentially, it is viewed the field of whatever last dregs of human thought failed to grow up into a true science or math while rejecting theology. Even when I listen to or read Rand, I often walk away wondering if it all peaked with the stoics, Maimonides and Aquinas.
Capitalism is a system of class servitude that maintains the existence of a poor working class and elevates a small capitalist class who live on profits made from the labor of the workers. It works by keeping wages low by making sure most people don't own land and pay for land access -- rent or mortgage -- and some are homeless to scare the rest of the workers to keep on working or "there but for the grace of god go ye" -- and it works. It works for keeping the people working for the rich so the rich can live extravagant lives like royalty without having to work themselves.
Said every aspiring dictator...
Not at all. That was an inappropriate response. I guess you have no argument whatsoever to counter what I said about capitalism. Figures. Am I the only living person here?
What you said was just regurgitating Marxist dogma from centuries past and long debunked. It was an entirely appropriate response.
The most capitalist countries were the fastest growing with the fastest rising standard of living. Communist countries were the most stagnant, impoverished (suits the dictators) and miserable, prior to their collapse. Their low capital base and consequently poorly paid workers have attracted a lot of capital investment since, which has spurred great increases in productivity and workers' living standards, but they're really only playing catch up.
Capitalists invest in machinery to raise labour productivity and total production and then actually bid workers' wages up in competing for their labour. Capital accumulation actually aids workers who haven't the chutzpah to save and invest, let alone start and run a business - it serves to raise their wages. What's more, getting more out of fewer workers, allowing a greater proportion of the population to be served, even by fewer workers (ultimately), means even more growth in the total production possibility frontier. Workers made redundant get new jobs making new products not previously economically feasible, meaning there's a greater pool of goods for everyone to consume.
What I said in my initial comment was just straight-up true. People work for money and most people pay rent or mortgage because of how capitalism controls land not as a right but as a commodity. Is this true or not?
Just one more attempt to violate the fundamental laws of nature that offer no compassion or empathy for just showing up.
Capitalism is class servitude by control of the land and removal of land access as a right, to forcibly extract the labor of the many to go to the few. That’s the violation of fundamental laws of nature, putting people into class slavery.
This is where scholars should search for economic concepts like capitalism.
In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, edited by David R. Henderson and published online by the Library of Economics and Liberty.
https://share.google/pCAojlm6ElAxJeuym
Really the better source is anything that describes the Enclosures as the removal of people from the land to force our labor and keep wages low. One such book is The Invention of Capitalism by Michael Perelman.
No one is forcing workers into the “factories”. I live in Amish Country where the Amish farm their own food and build much of the furniture they need. There’s plenty of inexpensive land for you (and others) to work for your own needs.
Capitalism forces the bulk of people to sell labor under the onerous conditions that it creates for us, so yes, the whole system *is* indeeed forcing us, by removing our land access then renting it back to us for our labor. And no there is not "plenty of inexpensive land" -- at least not with the meaning of "inexpensive" meaning that most working class people can afford it. There simply is not. We working class people rent or take out a mortgage if we're able to get one. That's not inexpensive.
I certainly agree that inexpensive land is not free—why would it be?
I don’t know anyone who is forced to work. I only know people who voluntarily agree to work for other people for an agreed upon price (a salary or hourly or some other form of compensation). I also know many people who work for themselves and provide goods and services for a price set by the market (the law of supply and demand).
And of course almost all people who buy land must take out a mortgage or some other form of loan (if no structure is on the land). Why is that objectionable?
There is land for sale in the U.S. for less than $1,000 per acre. Below are some examples.
New Mexico: $400 to $4,000 per acre (averaging around $725–$6,000 depending on raw desert vs. market listings). Extreme low-cost parcels can be found in counties like Luna County.
Arizona: $500 to $5,000 per acre (averaging about $4,200 statewide). Inexpensive plots are common in Cochise, Mohave, and Apache counties.
Nevada: $600 to $6,000 per acre. Vast federal land ownership leaves scattered, low-cost private pockets.
Wyoming: Approximately $1,000 to $2,080 per acre for rural and agricultural land.
Montana: Approximately $1,230 to $1,350 per acre.
Mississippi: $3,490 per acre average, offering fertile soil and timber tracts.
Arkansas: Around $3,720 per acre average for diverse rural plots.