|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2018 15:03:07 GMT -5
Such a point of view implies that a) the "rich" or the "capitalists" are a mostly unchanged group across time and that b) it actually matters to current members what the fate of future members might be (i.e. that, say, Andrew Carnegie would have been concerned about protecting Jeff Bezos, simply because Bezos would become a super-rich guy). I don't think either implication is intellectually or historically defensible.
But welcome, iolo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2018 21:33:53 GMT -5
Just dropping in to say welcome to iolo !
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 22, 2018 22:42:32 GMT -5
Such a point of view implies that a) the "rich" or the "capitalists" are a mostly unchanged group across time and that b) it actually matters to current members what the fate of future members might be (i.e. that, say, Andrew Carnegie would have been concerned about protecting Jeff Bezos, simply because Bezos would become a super-rich guy). I don't think either implication is intellectually or historically defensible. But welcome, iolo! a) so, how have they changed, across time? b) aren't future members generally called heirs? c) thirding the welcome, iolo
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 23, 2018 8:38:39 GMT -5
Such a point of view implies that a) the "rich" or the "capitalists" are a mostly unchanged group across time and that b) it actually matters to current members what the fate of future members might be (i.e. that, say, Andrew Carnegie would have been concerned about protecting Jeff Bezos, simply because Bezos would become a super-rich guy). I don't think either implication is intellectually or historically defensible. But welcome, iolo!HI. How many capitalist regimes are coming apart at the moment? As it is, they can just hold power, putting up some posturer or other to pick up the protest vote. In a crisis, they take up the only proved means of survival.
|
|
|
Post by iolo on Mar 23, 2018 8:39:40 GMT -5
Just dropping in to say welcome to iolo ! Thanks. Good to be here.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 30, 2018 13:56:45 GMT -5
a) so, how have they changed, across time? b) aren't future members generally called heirs? c) thirding the welcome, iolo I'm not sure what you're looking for, here. Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, these guys are not members of the Carnegie family, of the Rockefeller family, of the--going back farther--Vanderbilt family. And US Steel is gone. So are a host of other "too big to fail" companies. And no, in this context--of "capitalists"--future members are not called heirs, at all. Read what I was responding to again: It's an interesting blurb, but again, I don't see how it can be seen as consistent with historical reality because--again--it's built around the faulty idea that "capitalists" are some sort of social class that exists mostly unchanged across time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 15:55:33 GMT -5
derail/ Confession: when I hear the term "capitalist" applied to a person, I immediately think of this guy:
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 30, 2018 17:42:12 GMT -5
That character is actually based on Fred Trump, Donald's father. No lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2018 17:46:34 GMT -5
Fred must have been a lot cuter than Donald.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2018 20:01:05 GMT -5
a) so, how have they changed, across time? b) aren't future members generally called heirs? c) thirding the welcome, iolo I'm not sure what you're looking for, here. Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, these guys are not members of the Carnegie family, of the Rockefeller family, of the--going back farther--Vanderbilt family. And US Steel is gone. So are a host of other "too big to fail" companies. The post you were responding to didn't claim that capitalists are the same actual families over time. I think the post claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the mentality and motivation of the capitalists/the wealthiest is unchanged over time. I think it's a fair argument. The motivation of the capitalists, or the "rich," is to maintain and increase wealth. The direct beneficiaries of this are their heirs. Their children, their grandchildren, their great-grandchildren. The motivation is legacy, carried out by their heirs. That this endeavor isn't successful over multiple decades, that they didn't or couldn't predict or prepare for the future, e.g., technology, global markets, etc., doesn't mean they weren't trying to hold on to power. That "outsiders" grabbed hold of power and created new wealth doesn't negate the idea that those in power, while in power, tend to behave in certain ways. Essentially, I don't understand your refutation of the post at all. Maybe you should read it again, and consider intent, as opposed to outcome. You might see some similarities after all.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 1, 2018 20:36:51 GMT -5
The post you were responding to didn't claim that capitalists are the same actual families over time. I think the post claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the mentality and motivation of the capitalists/the wealthiest is unchanged over time. I think it's a fair argument. I don't, in part because--as I noted--it's an argument that presupposes that it matters to current so-called capitalists how the future plays out for unknown future capitalists, and of course that the group is static or at least stable across time. The last is easy enough to counter, as I have shown. The first is less easy to disprove or prove, but I think it fails to pass the smell test simply on the basis of the nebulousness of the label being used. You've now changed that label significantly by making capitalist=wealthiest. That's wrong, at least with respect to what iolo was saying initially. Lol. Again, capitalists d.n.e. the rich, as a matter of course. And your blanket assumption about motivation with respect to this ill-defined group is nonsense, expect if you are operating from the simplistic and--imo--incorrect assumption that everyone's primary motivation is to maintain and increase wealth. And iolo was specifically talking about capitalists (in power) behaving this way. There was and is no reason to assume every other group would do the same. Indeed, iolo's statements imply the exact opposite, that such behavior is necessarily limited to these supposed capitalists. Nope.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2018 20:51:44 GMT -5
The post you were responding to didn't claim that capitalists are the same actual families over time. I think the post claimed, rightly or wrongly, that the mentality and motivation of the capitalists/the wealthiest is unchanged over time. I think it's a fair argument. I don't, in part because--as I noted--it's an argument that presupposes that it matters to current so-called capitalists how the future plays out for unknown future capitalists, and of course that the group is static or at least stable across time. The last is easy enough to counter, as I have shown. The first is less easy to disprove or prove, but I think it fails to pass the smell test simply on the basis of the nebulousness of the label being used. You've now changed that label significantly by making capitalist=wealthiest. That's wrong, at least with respect to what iolo was saying initially. You both interchangeably used "capitalists" and "rich." You both equated them. Go back and look. I actually thought about posing the question, what do we mean by "capitalist"? But it seemed clear (and you confirmed with your references to individuals and families) that we weren't talking about plain ol' capitalists, who are not billionaires. But no, you haven't shown that the mentality and the motivation of, shall we say, "wealthy capitalists" has changed, simply because Rockefeller and Vanderbilt are no longer the ruling elite. That's an irrelevant observation, not an "easy counter." You are moving the goal posts, bigly. I'm happy to talk about capitalism. I approve of capitalism, in fact. But this was not the discussion you were taking part in, in previous posts. ETA: But yes, I do absolutely believe that the wealthy, by and large, want to maintain and increase their wealth. And hello? That is what capitalism IS. They are being capitalists. I've spent lots of time with millionaires discussing exactly how they can maintain and increase wealth, through tax strategies. I've spent exactly zero time discussing how they can make their wealth smaller. FFS. So take that general motivation, which is fine. Then apply it to billionaires with political power. What, suddenly the rules change? They want to give away their money now? Of course there are exceptions (did I say everyone? no, no I did not. NO ONE did) but I find your protestations here silly in the extreme. Now, maybe a few billionaires want something different than what we're used to seeing... maybe it's Elon Musk and he wants environmental policies enacted, which are great for the world, no doubt... but which also happen to favor his battery car. (Don't get me wrong, I WANT a Model S. It's just too expensive.) What is Musk up against? Other billionaires with investments in the standard automotive industry, I imagine. But to act like Musk, Bezos, et al aren't the modern-day counterparts of Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, et al... you haven't shown that at all. And I must add, your argument here is very un-Hobbes like. What happened to "I put forth for the general inclination of man to pursue power after power, until death"? That's a fair point -- that it's not capitalism that is the issue. I didn't see you bringing up this point before? That capitalists (to be clear: the wealthy elite, in power) behave this way does not presuppose that wealth, in and of itself, is the problem. Wealth is not the problem. Power is the problem. But it's difficult, in a capitalistic society, to see the latter existing without the former.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Apr 2, 2018 8:12:06 GMT -5
You both interchangeably used "capitalists" and "rich." You both equated them. Go back and look. Well, no. In response to iolo, I refereed to the "rich" or "capitalists"--both in quotes as a subtle means of noting a problem with the terms, which--in my first response to you--I went back to with this: "...it's built around the faulty idea that "capitalists" are some sort of social class that exists mostly unchanged across time." I get that "capitalists"--not unlike "fascists" or "communists"--is an easy label to use for the bogeymen that some might see as the root of all problems in the world, but it is poor reasoning and statements such as iolo's initial one don't hold up to real scrutiny, because not only do they rely on questionable and often contradictory definitions, but also because they aren't grounded in historical reality. I guess I should have left that first post alone--since it's really unrelated to what's in this thread--because now we're in a tangent revolving around what is--in my mind--a generalization that is either untrue or pointless (because one might assume it's true for everyone in power, regardless of supposed "isms" or "ists'). I lean towards the former, myself.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 2, 2018 17:00:32 GMT -5
"I do absolutely believe that the wealthy, by and large, want to maintain and increase their wealth."
As opposed to poor people, who have no interest in maintaining and increasing their wealth?
There's certainly no track under this train of thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2018 17:17:13 GMT -5
I think many poor people often have little thought, moneywise, beyond how to make ends meet from day to day; they have no wealth to maintain, and no feasible means to increase it. It's "can I make rent this month and still buy groceries?", not "how can I invest my money most advantageously?"
|
|