What is a capitalist?

[ddombrowsky]

I was in a meeting this afternoon where we were discussing some of the "old" methods of parking control used in a major US city.  The person was constantly referring to the law enforcement as "pure capitalists."  I'm not positive, but I don't think that means what he thinks it means.

 

I don't usually use that term to describe myself, even though it might be apt.  It's a marxist term, and a derogatory one at that.  This person was using it in that way, to mean "making money at any cost, including theft and deception."  That is not "capitalism" in my opinion.  My definition is to risk one's personal property in an investment, in hopes of making more capital in return, and in the process supplying a demand from the marketplace in a mutually beneficial transaction.  

 

How would you define it (in 2 sentences or less)?

 

-dave

 

PS:  Hello everyone.   This is my first post.  I trust people here are open minded and here for discussion and enlightenment.

[Alan C.]

A capitalist is somebody who procures, organizes, and transforms resources to create higher-order goods (aka capital goods) in order to produce lower-order goods (aka consumption goods). A loom is an example of a capital good. Clothing is an example of a consumption good.

 

This definition doesn't just apply to business people; it also applies to individuals.

[Qwent]

When it comes to an exchange of value capitalism is the ability of individuals or entities to engage each other in contracts for goods and services that are agreeable to all parties in the contract.  Now you can see that unfettered capitalism can be a problem if the goods and services at issue are otherwise detrimental to those who have no say in the contract.  For example; you may not contract with an individual who is willing to provide the service of killing your neighbor for the money that you are willing to offer.  While the forgoing might fit the definition of a capitalist exchange it is not something that would be permitted in civilized society.

 

In order for capitalism to function amicably in a society, that society must have some set of recognized and accepted standards that are followed by the private sector and are enforceable.  Now your friend at the meeting might have been referring to the oft habit of local police bringing in revenue for the local government by issuing as many parking tickets as possible.  Well, consider that there is an implied contract with the city to provide a parking space in a public space for a set period of time and for a set fee.  Your legal use of such a space implies your willingness to pay the set fee for its use.  Failure to pay the fee could result in a fine for not fulfilling your end of the implied contract.

 

But the question remains, is the gathering of fines in this manner considered "capitalism"?  I say no because the violator ended up paying a fine rather than the fee specified in the contract.  Had the violator paid the parking fee then he would have been voluntarily exchanging of his money for use of the parking space for the set period of time and that would have at least looked like capitalism.  The fine however is a penalty for not fulfilling his end of the contract and when he pays this he is not getting anything for his money beyond what the parking fee would have cost him had he paid it at the outset.  The overage is paid as a punishment intended to compel a particular behavior from him in the future.  It is this negative aspect of the transaction as a fine rather than a fee that defines it as something other than capitalism as there is no mutually agreed upon benefit specific to both parties in this outcome.

​

[Mister Mister]

_{Yes I agree with your definitions Dave and Alan.  A capitalist is one who directs his resources towards producing more resources, or getting more value out of those resources...ehh, you guys said it better.  So in this sense, would you say a gun is a consumption good, unless you are the government, in which it is a capital good?}

[dsayers]

Welcome, Dave Great question.

 

My definition is to risk one's personal property in an investment, in hopes of making more capital in return, and in the process supplying a demand from the marketplace in a mutually beneficial transaction.  

I like this definition. And you know what? It supports my position which is: We are all capitalists. We all have the capacity for reason, which means we are responsible for the effects of our actions, which means we own ourselves. Thus, our body, time, life, labor are our property. I make a point to state it like this because I think it reveals that a LOT of what people try to present as complex is really quite simple.

 

Take the person you're referring to for example. You said that he was repeatedly referring to group X as capitalists in a derogatory manner. In other words, he was investing his capital for the purpose of persuading others because he'd rather have more people agree with him than whatever else he could be using that same time for. Thus he was maligning others for what he himself was engaging in by the very act of the maligning. This is how you know his position is an unprincipled one and can be disregarded as an attempt to inflict a conclusion onto others without providing sound methodology or the rigor of making the case for that conclusion.

 

What do you think of this assessment?

[Des]

 

When it comes to an exchange of value capitalism is the ability of individuals or entities to engage each other in contracts for goods and services that are agreeable to all parties in the contract.  Now you can see that unfettered capitalism can be a problem if the goods and services at issue are otherwise detrimental to those who have no say in the contract.  For example; you may not contract with an individual who is willing to provide the service of killing your neighbor for the money that you are willing to offer.  While the forgoing might fit the definition of a capitalist exchange it is not something that would be permitted in civilized society.

 

In order for capitalism to function amicably in a society, that society must have some set of recognized and accepted standards that are followed by the private sector and are enforceable.  Now your friend at the meeting might have been referring to the oft habit of local police bringing in revenue for the local government by issuing as many parking tickets as possible.  Well, consider that there is an implied contract with the city to provide a parking space in a public space for a set period of time and for a set fee.  Your legal use of such a space implies your willingness to pay the set fee for its use.  Failure to pay the fee could result in a fine for not fulfilling your end of the implied contract.

 

But the question remains, is the gathering of fines in this manner considered "capitalism"?  I say no because the violator ended up paying a fine rather than the fee specified in the contract.  Had the violator paid the parking fee then he would have been voluntarily exchanging of his money for use of the parking space for the set period of time and that would have at least looked like capitalism.  The fine however is a penalty for not fulfilling his end of the contract and when he pays this he is not getting anything for his money beyond what the parking fee would have cost him had he paid it at the outset.  The overage is paid as a punishment intended to compel a particular behavior from him in the future.  It is this negative aspect of the transaction as a fine rather than a fee that defines it as something other than capitalism as there is no mutually agreed upon benefit specific to both parties in this outcome.

​

 

Now if the owner(s) of the roads and parking spaces had used gates and armed guards to deny entry to the city, to anyone who did not sign up to the contract which specifies that the parking-space user either pays before use, or pays a penalty if caught in breach of that agreement, then that is capitalism. Road owners are not compelled to let you drive on their roads, so they can set conditions, and if you don't accept the conditions, don't drive on their roads.

[Des]

A capitalist is somebody who procures, organizes, and transforms resources to create higher-order goods (aka capital goods) in order to produce lower-order goods (aka consumption goods). A loom is an example of a capital good. Clothing is an example of a consumption good.

 

This definition doesn't just apply to business people; it also applies to individuals.

 

_{Yes I agree with your definitions Dave and Alan.  A capitalist is one who directs his resources towards producing more resources, or getting more value out of those resources...ehh, you guys said it better.  So in this sense, would you say a gun is a consumption good, unless you are the government, in which it is a capital good?}

By Alan's explanation, these are higher order goods:

• Handgun (used to produce the lower order good of personal security).
• Rifle (used to produce the lower order goods of venison / hides).
• Washing machine (used to produce lower order good of clean clothing).
• Toaster (okay, boring now)

Down with mean toaster-owning capitalist pigs!

[endostate]

Capitalism is voluntary trade.  The results is profit for both parties ie: they are both capitalists.

In your parking lot example the parker profits with a spot, and the lot owner profits with money. If it's voluntary, how is it a bad thing? Value is subjective.

If you think of capital as friends and capitalism as friendliness (happiness is profit), it's like that person is saying "Hey, look at that happy guy. So many friends from being so friendly.  Pure capitalist."

[Alan C.]

...unfettered capitalism can be a problem if the goods and services at issue are otherwise detrimental to those who have no say in the contract. For example; you may not contract with an individual who is willing to provide the service of killing your neighbor for the money that you are willing to offer.

 

What does hiring a hitman to murder somebody have to do with capitalism?

 

Also, what do parking tickets have to do with capitalism?

[NotDarkYet]

Everybody is a capitalist, whether they know it or not. 

[WasatchMan]

Read Atlas Shrugged.

[dsayers]

PS:  Hello everyone.   This is my first post.  I trust people here are open minded and here for discussion and enlightenment.

When I first read this, I experienced a red flag. It's been my experience that people who speak to the behaviors of others before they've had the opportunity to engage in them, are being manipulative. It's poisoning the well as painting one's self as being open minded and seeking enlightenment, usually to preempt suspicion to the contrary. I bring this up because in this thread, Mr. Dombrowsky is engaging in similarly manipulative discourse.

 

I think the thread itself will still be a productive one. Just wanted to help others by pointing out potential warning signs, or perhaps solicit criticism on how I've erred in my assessment.