CAPITALISM: Do you know what it is? What is your opinion?

by Terry 89 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hillary_step

  Terry,

  I will tell you what, Hillary_step, I'll make an especial effort not to mislead you by applying all my conscious power to attributing anybody I may be quoting (or cut and pasting for convenience) if it will mean peace of mind for you.

  Point missed, yet again Terry! It is not myself that you misled Terry, because I *knew* that you were attributing others ideas and words as your own and called you out on it. You were in fact misleading all those on this Board who did not know this.

  Definately my last word.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  Terry

  zen nudist offered: The Divine Right Of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy

  By Marjorie Kelly

  To judge by the current arrangement in corporate America, one might suppose capital creates wealth ? which is odd, because a pile of capital sitting there creates nothing.

  How did the capital get there into the pile? Did somebody earn it by the fruits of their labor? Are they entitled to trade their talent for money exchange? If it is earned capital it is the property of the one who earned it. It can then be invested. In that case it will sit somewhere, won't it? Capital is a potential. People create business; capital creates nothing. People create using capital.

  To justify the allegiance stockholders receive, we?re told they take risk, putting their money on the line so companies can grow. Stockholders are said to provide capital for company use.

  Blue sky laws require proper explanations to investors; but, investors must decide what risks to take by due dilligence.

  Buying stock is no longer about investing in companies but about buying the right to extract from them. This right is justified by saying stockholders "own" corporations. Yet the same justification was used for the monarchy. The king was considered sovereign over the nation because he owned it.

  The one who takes the risk is entitled to their earnings. An investor risks capital and expects to earn the result of success according to the amount of risk (investment size) taken. A King did not buy his kingdom or invest capital. A king ruled by "divine right" or by force of military. This is a blazing False Analogy.

  With imperialism, India was considered a "possession" of the British Crown. The same was true of America before the Revolution. Since property ownership was linked to sovereignty; the landed class ruled Britain, while Britain ruled America. What Thomas Paine said of this governance arrangement might be said anew about stockholder governance: "There was a time when it was proper, and there is a proper time for it to cease."

  The false analogy continues. Britain used the force of arms to "possess" India.

  The oddity of it all is veiled by the incantation of a single, magical word: ownership. Because we say stockholders own corporations, they are permitted to contribute very little, and take quite a lot.

  The key operating here is RISK. The investor is approached to offer capital to allow a business the opportunity to earn profit. The amount of ownership is determined by the one selling the shares ahead of time and the price per share agreed to mutually. Rules are in the open. There are no surprises. The capital is risked so that the investor, IF the business succeeds, will reap a reward. The assertion that stockholders contribute very little and take quite a lot has no context in actual business. Which company is being used as an example of this? Nothing is true in a vaccuum. As many investors LOSE money in investing; perhaps most.

  This wealth concentration is a direct result of the system design. We can change that design, democratizing economic institutions as we once democratized political institutions. This may involve new forms of citizenship in corporate governance, broadened fiduciary duties that reach beyond shareholders, and supplemental financial statements focusing on stakeholder impact rather than stockholder gain.

  Magic? Who produces wealth in the first place? Is it people who do not work? No. Is it people who do not risk? No. What would __democratizing_ consist of? Do profits come from nowhere? No. Anybody who has earned money is free to invest it equally. This is democracy. But, the above paragraphs seems to be saying something___else. What?
• 

  Terry

  hillary_step says: Point missed, yet again Terry! It is not myself that you misled Terry, because I *knew* that you were attributing others ideas and words as your own and called you out on it. You were in fact misleading all those on this Board who did not know this.

  Definately my last word.

  All those on this Board owe you a debt of gratitude for exposing my subtle attempt to pass off the definition of Exquisite Corpse as my own when, in reality, I was engaged in a sinister and deceitful plan to cut and paste a paragraph from the web. I'm found out!

  Luckily, you were smarter than all the rest of the posters on JWD, because--out of them all--you alone were intelligent enough to catch me at it and expose my feckless dishonesty.

  On behalf of "all those on the Board" who weren't smart enough to figure out this contemptuous and flagrant violation of netiquette, I thank you.

  Oh--I found this on the web (under Netiquette) and decided to cut and paste it too!

  "If you do decide to inform someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and preferably by private email rather than in public. Give people the benefit of the doubt; assume they just don't know any better. And never be arrogant or self-righteous about it. Just as it's a law of nature that spelling flames always contain spelling errors, notes pointing out Netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette.

  I can only hope the others on this board think I wrote it!
• 

  czarofmischief

  Terry are you embarassed to have been caught out? It's natural to be a litttle hesitant to admit a mistake. And one of the things that people, not logical people, but just plain everyday ordinary folks, do when they are embarassed is look for someone to blame. For instance, when Dan Rather got caught, they started blaming everyone from Karl Rove to the Bermuda Triangle... but in the end whose responsibility was it that an inadequately vetted story was publicized? Dan Rather was the man who let in on the air, who didn't vet his sources, and who had to make an apology, and will probably have to retire over it. Nobody made the mistake for him.

  Besides, the way I see it, HS (a gray-headedly venerable member of this board, BTW) WAS extremely polite to you the whole way through. I think you are just embarassed because you got caught NOT following proper critical standards and are seeking to blame Hillary for being "rude" about pointing out your mistake.

  You made a mistake. Admit it, apologize, and make proper references in the future. You are in danger of losing the validity of your points if you don't admit where you are wrong.

  Besides, I'm fairly well read - that's how I recognized the Randian philisophy - but I would have never thought you were cutting and pasting from websites without attributing the sources? I mean, many people reword thoughts and only include a momentary reference to their source, but hardly anyone directly cuts and pastes and presents as their own. At least, if they don't work for CBS. You fooled me into believing you had become this dogmatically insistent all on your own. (With Ayn's help of course. What a biatch.)

  CZAR
• 

  toreador

  Well put Czar! We wouldn't want to think Terry any smarter than he really is. I do wonder when reading some of posts here if people actually wrote all of it themselves. I think it is only proper to give credit where credit is due.
• 

  Terry

  czarofmischief said: You made a mistake. Admit it, apologize, and make proper references in the future. You are in danger of losing the validity of your points if you don't admit where you are wrong.

  Okay, I made a mistake. I admit it. I apoligize. I'll make proper references in the future.

  I wish I had some validity to lose. If I'm wrong' I'm wrong.
• 

  Terry

  toreador says:
  Well put Czar! We wouldn't want to think Terry any smarter than he really is. I do wonder when reading some of posts here if people actually wrote all of it themselves. I think it is only proper to give credit where credit is due.

  I can only remember being tested I.Q.-wise once. The outcome was revealed that my I.Q. was 99!

  Average is 100 and genius is 135! So, I'm not even quite average! (the year was 1967)
• 

  toreador

  Terry wrote: I can only remember being tested I.Q.-wise once. The outcome was revealed that my I.Q. was 99!

  Average is 100 and genius is 135! So, I'm not even quite average! (the year was 1967)

  Was that when you were 2 years old? ;) I wish I had a better memory thats for damn sure. What is the secret, or are you just born with it.
• 

  Terry

  toreador wrote:

  Terry wrote: I can only remember being tested I.Q.-wise once. The outcome was revealed that my I.Q. was 99!

  Average is 100 and genius is 135! So, I'm not even quite average! (the year was 1967)

  Was that when you were 2 years old? ;) I wish I had a better memory thats for damn sure. What is the secret, or are you just born with it.

  What is the secret for being below average? Well, I just try as hard as I can to be smart; that's all! The rest is natural!

  I am 57 years old. I can remember silly things; Trivia. But, important things seem to be on vacation. I remember poems, numbers, quotes and minutia. The rest is pea soup.
• 

  SixofNine

  :Are people going to gasp and say aloud: "Oh my god! I thought Terry himself was defining an exquisite corpse in his very own words. But, now, it turns out he was using the definition he cut and pasted because he is lazy! I'm misled. I thought I KNEW Terry by the sum of his posts! Now I don't know him at all." Heavenly days!