-- Capital Theory 2.0 (Work-In-Progress) --

[luxfelix]

[This is an open work-in-progress theory regarding Capital and relevant definitions]:

 

 

-- Preface --

 

In the same way the color wheel and circle of fifths help to convey relationships and serve as mnemonic diagrams, I seek to simplify and clarify capital theory for ease of teaching and incorporation into our daily lives. This is also an attempt to make measurable those aspects of capital other than physical/financial forms (many of them already are measured to some degree). If this sounds like something that interests you as well, I welcome your contributions, critiques, and clarifications. 

 

 

-- Definitions --

 

Capital: The source for, and result of, exchange/interaction (...too vague?)

Capital: A vehicle for will

Capital: A means to an end

 

Capital Archetypes: Subcategories (the "hues") of capital that share certain properties (convenient as a label but not mutually exclusive to another archetype)

 

Inter-Capital: Exchanges/interactions between different capital archetypes (a change in "hue" on the color wheel, or for example, cash for cookies) 

 

Intra-Capital: Exchanges/interactions within the same capital archetype (a change in "intensity" of a hue on the color wheel, or for example, cookies for milk)

 

Currency: Valuations: The unit of measurement used for a specific capital archetype

 

 

-- Capital Archetypes --

 

[][/Red] Natural Capital: Capital that sustains life.

     This can include land/ecosystems, food, water, animals, and even the body (time too?). The implication here is that self-ownership is not only a foundation of responsibility for one's actions, but also a generator of other capital (what we make with our time and energy for example).

     Possible currencies valuations include calories, joules (?), weight, numerical count (head of cattle for example), ppm/pH (water purity), and carbon/nitrogen/etc. (?).

 

[][/Orange] Financial Capital: Capital that facilitates trade.

     This can include physical and/or digital forms of money, credit, insurances, securities, stocks/bonds, and any other form of fiduciary contract. The implication here is that this capital acts as a middleman capital to ease economic exchange between other capitals with physical limitations (or otherwise), and account for wealth in an abstract manner.

     Possible currencies valuations include price, probability percentages, shares, and... (maybe an economist can elaborate further?)

 

[][/Yellow] Material Capital: Capital that fuels/supplies industry.

     This can include all matter of resources, tools, and infrastructure. The implication here is that this capital maintains the means of production.

     Possible currencies valuations include weight/load capacity, grade (quality), production rate, tensile strength, and efficiency (energy, material, or otherwise).

 

[][/Green] Social Capital: Capital that denotes diplomatic capacity.

     This can include your social network, recommendations/reputation/trustworthiness/influence, and legitimacy. The implication here is that who you know and who knows you can become a valuable asset (strength of connections within a network).

     Possible currencies valuations include the number of connections, friends, and followers you have (both in your local and digital/distant neighborhood), your credit score, public opinion poll percentages, etc.

 

[][/blue] Cultural Aesthetic Capital: Capital that projects perception.

     This can include art (manifested appeals to the senses), rituals, prestige, luxury, etc. The implication here is that people and things (ephemeral or enduring) have intrinsic value beyond the material, medium, or action.

     Possible currencies valuations include... I dunno... provenance?  (moving on...)

 

[][/indigo] Human Intellectual Gnostic Capital: Capital that documents and imparts information.

     This can include diplomas, reference materials, an individual's collection of experience (knowledge/wisdom etc.), personality, and language/discussion/debate. The implication here is that (applied) knowledge is power (whether esoteric or exoteric) and can inform our decisions throughout various capital transactions.

     Possible currencies valuations include literacy, age (?), bytes/RAM/processing power, and informational accuracy/intelligence (error probability).

 

[][/Violet] Spiritual (φ) Capital: Capital that encourages self-actualization.

     This can include empathy, morale/self-esteem, honor, mastery, and internal resonance (as opposed to cognitive dissonance). The implication here is that our emotions are valuable in ways like sensing a connection to others as well as an internal guidance system (for future thoughts and behaviors).

     Possible currencies valuations include the emotional scale, etc. (another hard one...)

 

-- Discussion/Revisions --

 

[i look forward to hearing your thoughts.]

 

StylesGrant: Humanity in Capital vs. Rationality

 

AustinJames: Subjective vs. Objective capital, & Social/Cultural Capital overlap

 

GRosado: Redefine Capital, Inter- Intra- Confusion, Currency/Measurement Confusion, & Hayekian Triangle Inclusion

 

Josh F: Human Capital distinctions possibly unnecessary, & possible Coercive Capital/Political Capital inclusion.

 

I made a model to illustrate the idea. 

 

 

[GRosado]

I will post a response I just wanted to write one fully, so don't think people don't Care about your post. This is too interesting to not respond to.

[StylesGrant]

I certainly like it as a form of visualizing the conceptual aspect of organizing society through its capital. I think it points to a more balanced reasonable idea of a more ...forward thinking ..philanthropic real capital economic approach to markets, which in my mind is really what is lacking...the cultural valuation of ..well spiritual capital if that's a term. Which just that part alone could easily fill a 1000 page book. After all I think that is where the real source of conflict in economic arguments comes from, the debate over the humanity in capital vs. the rationality.

[AustinJames]

Interesting!  I like the idea.  The difference between subjective and objective types of capital may be worth noting, as in Natural Capital vs. Spiritual Capital.  I'm also confused about the difference between Cultural Capital and Societal Capital; they seem to overlap in my mind.  Perhaps the difference could be more distinguished.

 

Keep going with it!  I think these ideas are worth articulating.  Capitalism is so misunderstood, perhaps a more explicit theory can help to rectify common misconceptions.

[GRosado]

Your definition of capital is to broad & misses the mark. The source of exchange/interaction is the Action Axiom(Humans act, humans have many preferences & humans have a variety of resources to achieve their ends) Capital can be the means to the end(human preferences). But capital can also be the result of human action, example: Robinson Crusoe is picking berries at a rate of 20 an hour which costs much of his time. Therefore he decides to build a stick that would increase his rate to 40 an hour. So his end was making a stick & the means were twigs & such. So I think you need to change your definition of Capital.

 

Also you need to flip inter & intra cause you mixed them up. Inter is within & Intra is outside.

 

Currencies cannot be used as the measurement because they are a specific form of money i.e. paper bank notes, coins etc.

 

Other than that I think this is pretty good, what I see in my head is a color wheel that shows the different types of capital & in between each you show a new form that mixes between the two bigger forms. Then it could possibly be combined with the Hayekian triangles to illustrate what kind of capital is used at each stage of the production process.

[luxfelix]

I will post a response I just wanted to write one fully, so don't think people don't Care about your post. This is too interesting to not respond to.

 

I appreciate that! 

[luxfelix]

I certainly like it as a form of visualizing the conceptual aspect of organizing society through its capital. I think it points to a more balanced reasonable idea of a more ...forward thinking ..philanthropic real capital economic approach to markets, which in my mind is really what is lacking...the cultural valuation of ..well spiritual capital if that's a term. Which just that part alone could easily fill a 1000 page book. After all I think that is where the real source of conflict in economic arguments comes from, the debate over the humanity in capital vs. the rationality.

 

(Maybe there's another term for spiritual capital that has less connotative cargo attached to it?)

 

I'm glad you like it for visualizing; if it's useful then I've fulfilled one of my goals with this. 

 

Is the debate over humanity in capital vs. rationality something along the lines of, "human/environmental concerns are opposed to corporate profit goals," or, "you can't put a price on love"? Please clarify for the discussion if you don't mind.

[luxfelix]

Interesting!  I like the idea.  The difference between subjective and objective types of capital may be worth noting, as in Natural Capital vs. Spiritual Capital.  I'm also confused about the difference between Cultural Capital and Societal Capital; they seem to overlap in my mind.  Perhaps the difference could be more distinguished.

 

Keep going with it!  I think these ideas are worth articulating.  Capitalism is so misunderstood, perhaps a more explicit theory can help to rectify common misconceptions.

 

Ah, good point! I notice that as we go down the list, the different capitals become more subjective (and therefore harder to measure...?). That might be a good way to organize the list as well.

 

I feel a similar overlap between Social and Cultural Capital.

 

One example I could use to differentiate between the two is, if a friend recommends you to an HR department at a business firm they work at (Social Capital) than you have a better chance of getting hired, but if you show up in flip flops and propeller cap (Cultural Capital), then you may be perceived as not very serious about the position you're interviewing for... "We'll be in touch..." (Unless they're a fun business firm!   )

 

Maybe that doesn't really justify the separation, maybe there's a better term for communicating the difference, or maybe I've missed some capital archetypes that should be added?

 

Part of the purpose for color references is, just like color, there is an objective (wavelength) and subjective (hue) quality to this. (By the way I'm glad you pointed out that I was missing that clarification.   ) As different languages have more or fewer names for colors than English, different economic systems identify more or fewer capital archetypes (and/or really focus on some forms over others).

 

Thank you, I'll continue to update this theory as I receive more suggestions like these!

[luxfelix]

Your definition of capital is to broad & misses the mark. The source of exchange/interaction is the Action Axiom(Humans act, humans have many preferences & humans have a variety of resources to achieve their ends) Capital can be the means to the end(human preferences). But capital can also be the result of human action, example: Robinson Crusoe is picking berries at a rate of 20 an hour which costs much of his time. Therefore he decides to build a stick that would increase his rate to 40 an hour. So his end was making a stick & the means were twigs & such. So I think you need to change your definition of Capital.

 

Also you need to flip inter & intra cause you mixed them up. Inter is within & Intra is outside.

 

Currencies cannot be used as the measurement because they are a specific form of money i.e. paper bank notes, coins etc.

 

Other than that I think this is pretty good, what I see in my head is a color wheel that shows the different types of capital & in between each you show a new form that mixes between the two bigger forms. Then it could possibly be combined with the Hayekian triangles to illustrate what kind of capital is used at each stage of the production process.

 

I do need to change the definition of capital, and we're on the same page with action axiom. Perhaps:

 

Capital: A vehicle of will.

 

("Vehicle = a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something", & "Will = the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action")

 

Is it E=mc^2 yet? 

 

Nice catch on inter- and intra- for revision!

 

The point I'm making (or failing to make) with measurements is, money may be a currency but not all currencies are money (Financial Capital). It could be too far of a stretch. Maybe just call it "appraisals", "valuations", or "measurements" to keep it simple?

 

Thank you for introducing me to Hayekian triangles! It sounds like a compatible diagram, turning the color wheel of capitals into a cone to denote time and production stages. The mixing you mentioned, are you referring to something like primary, secondary, tertiary, complimentary, split-complimentary, etc. color schemes?

[GRosado]

I do need to change the definition of capital, and we're on the same page with action axiom. Perhaps:

 

Capital: A vehicle of will.

 

("Vehicle = a thing used to express, embody, or fulfill something", & "Will = thefacultyofconsciousandespeciallyofdeliberateaction")

 

Is it E=mc^2 yet?

 

Nice catch on inter- and intra- for revision!

 

The point I'm making (or failing to make) with measurements is, money may be a currency but not all currencies are money (Financial Capital). It could be too far of a stretch. Maybe just call it "appraisals", "valuations", or "measurements" to keep it simple?

 

Thank you for introducing me to Hayekian triangles! It sounds like a compatible diagram, turning the color wheel of capitals into a cone to denote time and production stages. The mixing you mentioned, are you referring to something like primary, secondary, tertiary, complimentary, split-complimentary, etc. color schemes?

For capital you could put a means to an end.

 

You said it wrong it's currency is money but not all money is currency. I think valuations would be fine unless something else is brainstormed.

 

I'm saying you get a Hayekian Triangle with the divisions in the order of goods & you add colors from the capital color wheel to illustrate what types out capital are used at each stage of the production process until the final stage of consumption is reached.

[luxfelix]

Thank you again for the revision suggestions.

 

Huh, I presumed that all capital archetypes would/could be used at any stage of the production process in a Hayekian Triangle. Is this not the case? 

[GRosado]

Thank you again for the revision suggestions.Huh, I presumed that all capital archetypes would/could be used at any stage of the production process in a Hayekian Triangle. Is this not the case?

Yea they all can be used at every stage of the production process.

[luxfelix]

Ah, okay.

 

So the Hayekian Triangle would show the stages of production with variable pie graphs/stack rankings in each stage?

 

For example, for a Hollywood film:

 

Pre-Production:

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Production:

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Post-Production:

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Marketing:

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Theater Rounds:

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

Post-Theater Consumption:

()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()

 

Is that what you were suggesting? 

[GRosado]

Yes that's spot on except I visualized it within the actual Hayekian Triangle but that doesn't matter. This is excellent to say the least.

[luxfelix]

Yes that's spot on except I visualized it within the actual Hayekian Triangle but that doesn't matter. This is excellent to say the least.

 

Cool beans! Thanks again for the suggestions. 

[luxfelix]

Update:

 

Bension started a topic requesting a "Truth About Capitalism" video by Stefan Molyneux; if you're interested, I've included a link to his topic here as a tangent to this discussion:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41369-capitalism-for-beginners/

[luxfelix]

Update:

 

A recent Idea Channel episode describes the idea of value in social media posts:

 

[Bension]

"Also you need to flip inter & intra cause you mixed them up. Inter is within & Intra is outside."

 

 

 

Someone named Grosado didn't take Latin class. Inter means between and intra means within.

[GRosado]

"Also you need to flip inter & intra cause you mixed them up. Inter is within & Intra is outside."Someone named Grosado didn't take Latin class. Inter means between and intra means within.

Yea I made a mistake. You could've simply said I got it wrong instead of making a snide remark saying I didn't attend Latin.

[luxfelix]

Thank you for the heads up, I changed it back. 

[luxfelix]

Update:

 

Coreforcruxes presents a kind of negative capital (debt) for statists in the post of the following link:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/41964-lexcoin/#entry384229

[luxfelix]

A relevant series about currency/money/economic systems:

 

[Josh F]

Your definition of Capital is pretty interesting.  I'm mulling it over.  I'm wondering if there are means to an end which wouldn't qualify as capital.

 

 

Also spiritual capital is more often called Human Capital, I don't know if that distinction is necessary.  Why is work ethic human capital but empathy is spiritual capital?  Knowledge is human capital, but mastery is spiritual capital?  Seems like one category instead of two, imo.  

 

I would consider another category for Capital as Coercive Capital or Political Capital.  In this category would be things like carbon credits or national debt, artificial capital constructs created through state violence.  This kind of stuff is really big in "green" circles, who seek to assign by force value to things which otherwise have no value like a coal company planting some trees in a forrest.  

[luxfelix]

Your definition of Capital is pretty interesting.  I'm mulling it over.  I'm wondering if there are means to an end which wouldn't qualify as capital.

 

 

Also spiritual capital is more often called Human Capital, I don't know if that distinction is necessary.  Why is work ethic human capital but empathy is spiritual capital?  Knowledge is human capital, but mastery is spiritual capital?  Seems like one category instead of two, imo.  

 

I would consider another category for Capital as Coercive Capital or Political Capital.  In this category would be things like carbon credits or national debt, artificial capital constructs created through state violence.  This kind of stuff is really big in "green" circles, who seek to assign by force value to things which otherwise have no value like a coal company planting some trees in a forrest.  

 

Thank you, but I didn't come up with it. 

 

(In this thread that would be GRosado.)

 

That could very well be the case, and I've seen some descriptions of Human Capital including what's listed here as the last four archetypes. AustinJames had a similar confusion about the difference between Societal and Cultural Capital; though I did try to present an example of their distinction from one another, if it turns out to be false/unhelpful, it wouldn't be so bad to do away with a direct analog to the seven-hued color wheel.

 

Though I disagree with creating another category for Coercive or Political Capital, I think I see a good point in your suggestion in that each capital archetype can be used in a moral (+), immoral (-), or amoral (@) manner, for example:

 

[] [/Red] : (+) Nursing (-) Murder (@) Birth

 

[] [/Orange] : (+) Trade (-) Fraud (@) Numismatics

 

[] [/Yellow] : (+) Emancipation (-) Slavery (@) Innovation

 

[] [/Green] : (+) Mediation (-) Calumny (@) Networking

 

[] [/blue] : (+) Verisimilitude (-) Gas-Lighting (@) Presentation

 

[] [/indigo] : (+) Forewarning (-) Espionage (@) Education

 

[] [/Violet] : (+) Parenting (-) Sophistry (@) Ambition

[luxfelix]

I'm still trying to find better terms and descriptions for the model; the latest edit is to change Cultural Capital to Aesthetic Capital since it is a more direct term for perception (and hopefully there's less chance of confusion between Societal Capital now).

[luxfelix]

Relevant video:

 

 

With respect to the example in the video (opportunity cost and specialization for trade etc.) and the model presented in this topic thread, I find similarities in the way firms often specialize in one or a few capital archetypes; for example, an investment bank is explicitly orange (lending and investing money etc.) while implicitly indigo (relying on data collected on market conditions to evaluate cost/benefits for any proposed investment). To some degree, the uniform of suits and ties express a use of blue capital as well, insofar as an appearance of professionalism and authority may increase their chances of success in negotiations.

[luxfelix]

Thinking about possibly splitting this thread up into separate discussions.

[luxfelix]

Realized I never actually posted model or circle of fifths example. 

[luxfelix]

The following link shows a darker side using a gamification approach (a sort of social capital for a coercive regime):

 

[luxfelix]

Update:

 

I [Nc]: Natural Capital

 

ii [Dc]: Defensive Capital

 

III [Fc]: Fertile Capital

 

iv [Mc]: Mercantile Capital

 

V [Ic]: Industrial Capital

 

VI [Ec]: Energetic Capital

 

vii [Sc]: Social Capital

 

VIII [Cc]: Credible Capital

 

ix [Ac]: Aesthetic Capital

 

X [Gc]: Gnostic Capital

 

xi [Φc]: Philosophical Capital

 

XII [µc]: Euphoric Capital

[Mister Mister]

Not an argument

[EclecticIdealist]

Not an argument

I don't believe they ever said it was, and I could teach a "two year old" to type that. Surely you've something more intelligent and substantive to say than parroting words like a two year old.

[luxfelix]

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 3:24 PM, RoseCodex said:

Not an argument

Thank you.

How's this for a start:

There are different kinds of capital.

What are your thoughts?

[luxfelix]

A hot topic of late:
 

Crypto-Currencies/Distributed Ledger Technologies appear to straddle various capital archetypes.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

Nice. I like the structure of your work. But, where will you go from here?

It can be used to remind people of some capital they have overlooked. As they read through the list, aaah, I forgot about this one!

 

However, I have a criticism. Financial Capital is a part of Social capital and should be absorbed by social capital. Everything you described in financial capital is either material or diplomatic cooperation. I suppose you won't have a ''legal capital'' category for notes denoting ownership and contracts, so why have an category denoting economic arrangements?

 

I would put natural capital into material capital. Both material and natural capital can sustain life. The distinction of man made vs non-man made is useless here. Rather, you could add ''un-owned potential capital'' for ressources useless now, but possibly useful later that are outside our sphere of activity