Free market economy w/o capitalism?
-
Like to seek the advice of the forummers here is it possible to have a free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism?
-
sure, just now, i just gave my durian puffs girlfriens some mangos in exchange for 2 pieces of durian cake.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
sure, just now, i just gave my durian puffs girlfriens some mangos in exchange for 2 pieces of durian cake.
The Taiwanese "hum" is perfect in its timing to spam its irreverent replies that distract the thread again.
Is the "giving to durian puffs girlfriens some mango in exchange for 2 pieces of durian cake" - an appropriate reply to the thread starter's effort to have a decent exchange of "a free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism" ?
The trading of "mango in exchange for 2 pieces of durian cake" is no more then personal barter trading.
Does it take any semblance of the macro level that the thread starter had intended ?
The imbecile "hum" cannot even appreciate the intent of the thread but will simply jump into one simply to score another for the record.
-
no
-
Originally posted by Catknight:
Like to seek the advice of the forummers here is it possible to have a free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism?
You can't really be free in any term of the word if your capital is controlled isn't it ? -
I can offer no advice. But just sharing a thought with you.
Capitalism means many things to many different people. Ultimately, one simply word to describe it is greed.
A monk seeks nothing, wants nothing, does nothing. He prays and meditates on scriptures or sutras. Can he create a market?
Since the dawn of civilisation when mankind became farmers under tribal system of governance, they had excess food when the harvest came in. Rather than to let it rot, they sold such excesses to others, such as fishermen. Trade developed, and a whole range of industries spouted with such wealth - lumberjacks, stone masons, etc, paid with such wealth created.
As mankind improved and grown wealthier, it was often the tribal leaders who had the most wealth, being the bossman of the tribe. He alone could either distribute such wealth or keep it under his control.
Being rich, he dictates and direct economic efforts. Scientific progress led to greater improvements of his and his society surroundings, paid thru the wealth he and his society gain.
He could have remain as he was, a jungle village or a thriving metropolis. He had that choice. Many of our ancestors choosed the metropolis, and thus capitalism was founded.
Democracy or Communism, that aspect of capitalism had never disappear. It had always been in mankind who traded its excess goods and resources. Democrats redistribute their wealth, but communists used it unwisely - traded valuable resources to build up their power and control over the population, as proven by the russians and chinamen.
No. we will all be monks only if capitalism do not exist.
-
The words capital refer to money, people created money in exchange for goods, in early years, where is no money or capital, people uses silver or gold to exchange for goods in a free market, and further than that, before gold and silver was said to be precious metal, people used goods in exchange for goods, in a free markets, no capital inolved. Each family of village will do certain job that does not contradict much on each other, just like a foodcourt,, it cannot be like all selling mee siam mai hum dish. So if A family grow rice, B family will grow vege and C family will take care of pig, chicken, cow etc etc and so on. Then they come to the market for a free exchange. Therefore, it is possible.
People created money because many of them dun want to plough the land or take care animals, they simply wants to be the middle man or sit and cheat others by creating Capital as the new order of the world
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
The words capital refer to money, people created money in exchange for goods, in early years, where is no money or capital, people uses silver or gold to exchange for goods in a free market, and further than that, before gold and silver was said to be precious metal, people used goods in exchange for goods, in a free markets, no capital inolved. Each family of village will do certain job that does not contradict much on each other, just like a foodcourt,, it cannot be like all selling mee siam mai hum dish. So if A family grow rice, B family will grow vege and C family will take care of pig, chicken, cow etc etc and so on. Then they come to the market for a free exchange. Therefore, it is possible.
People created money because many of them dun want to plough the land or take care animals, they simply wants to be the middle man or sit and cheat others by creating Capital as the new order of the world
capital is not $$
capital is more like asset.
consider stuff like economic capital, which is of relevance here, and the existence of social capital, cultural capital etc etc.
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
capital is not $$
capital is more like asset.
consider stuff like economic capital, which is of relevance here, and the existence of social capital, cultural capital etc etc.
but in layman term, u hv to agree everything is voice down to cash. now, who created cash?? leading to each asset being worth in term of cash?? Those that created Cash are smart people like the NY jews who knows that there is a way of mean of production in a non-labour condition that can make one many time richer than those toiling and labouring in the field till death. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
but in layman term, u hv to agree everything is voice down to cash. now, who created cash?? leading to each asset being worth in term of cash?? Those that created Cash are smart people like the NY jews who knows that there is a way of mean of production in a non-labour condition that can make one many time richer than those toiling and labouring in the field till death.
that's oversimplifying things to the extent of being rather wrong. -
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
that's oversimplifying things to the extent of being rather wrong.
depend on how you look at it, be flexible, if not, you can never be an entrepreneur, but merely a mean of production to support an economy that breed Capitalist. -
Originally posted by angel7030:
depend on how you look at it, be flexible, if not, you can never be an entrepreneur, but merely a mean of production to support an economy that breed Capitalist.
stop trying to mix white and black
-
Originally posted by SBS2601D:
stop trying to mix white and black
But MJ said it's Ok,...it dun matter if you are black or white...yeah...!! -
Self contradictory topic.
Do you often buy prawn noodles w/o prawn and noodles?
Capitalism
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
Capitalism
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Capitalism
An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. (Compare socialism and communism.)
-
Originally posted by Catknight:
Like to seek the advice of the forummers here is it possible to have a free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism?
The TS actually asked TWO different questions.
One in the title of this thread, and the other in his 1st post.
As answered and explained by my personal and simplified view on my initial post, there can be no free market w/o capitalism.
However, to answer to TS second question, now that I have time to share a thought, I doubt if there can be free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism.
Unbridled would mean unrestrained or uncontrolled. If I did not misinterprete TS at word value, he would mean a free market economy in a society with uncontrolled capitalism.
Unbridled capitalism within a democracy would mean less or no govt control and regulation, and allow the market to be dictated by free enterprise - in other words - the law of the jungle applies - survival of the fittest. No level playing field. No unions. No laws save constitutional laws of the land. The govt is supposed to shut up where biz is concern.
Civilised human beings did not step out of the jungle for nothing. Jungle laws were harsh, terrifying and would only doom a tribe to extinction, even with the supposition that the tribe was made up of noble people, which we know nobility is not gifted in equal measure to every human.
Even if the financial crisis had not happened, without govt regulation corporations will instead become dictators of the economy, with their bottomlines being the reason of the existance or annihilation.
Everything else are illusions and the goal is to achieve the targetted bottomlines to pay off shareholders - no reason, no law, no concern, and espacially no welfare to anyone, any society and employees, nothing must get in their way, everything and everyone a fair game, everything to be achieve at any costs, even murder as long as one doesnt get caught. The mighty bottomline is the final reward, which will flow into theirs and their shareholders pockets.
Nope. Private enterprises should be free from govt interferences, but there must be regulations to ensure a cowboy free for all culture do not exist.
-
The intelleigence of a X-rated pseudo-intellect never fail to amaze with its attempts to persistently impose its insufferable skewed impressions on its imagined wider audience that it hope to make another grandstanding event.
Originally posted by xtreyier:The TS actually asked TWO different questions.
It certainly take some remarkable genius for a X-rated pseudo-intellect to interprete a simple SINGLE line question : "Free market economy w/o capitalism?" into TWO different questions to be complicated with its own weak language skills that have been exposed so frequently.
One in the title of this thread, and the other in his 1st post.
As answered and explained by my personal and simplified view on my initial post, there can be no free market w/o capitalism.
Is there any marked difference in the title of the thread "Free market economy w/o capitalism?" and the statement made by TS in his first post - which state:
"Like to seek the advice of the forummers here is it possible to have a free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism?"
Which part does the X-rated pseudo-intellect see in the statement that differs from the title of the thread ?
"Like to seek the advice of the forummers here" - or - "is it possible to have a free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism?"
Is there a difference between "capitalism" and "unbridled capitalism" that the absence of either one will not allow "Free Economy" to function ?
However, to answer to TS second question, now that I have time to share a thought, I doubt if there can be free market economy in a society with unbridled capitalism.
Unbridled would mean unrestrained or uncontrolled. If I did not misinterprete TS at word value, he would mean a free market economy in a society with uncontrolled capitalism.
Was there any intelligent thought shared from these two sentences - or is this not a regurgitation of what the TS had said from the beginning that the X-rated pseudo-intellect attempt to simplify to its level of understanding - (with the obvious influence from Lim Swee Say whom it idolise) ?
Unbridled capitalism within a democracy would mean less or no govt control and regulation, and allow the market to be dictated by free enterprise - in other words - the law of the jungle applies - survival of the fittest. No level playing field. No unions. No laws save constitutional laws of the land. The govt is supposed to shut up where biz is concern.
What does forms of government - whether democracy or others - got anything to do with "unbridled Capitalism" ?
Does the X-rated pseudo-intellect intend to sell its alternative idea that "the govt should NOT shut up where biz is concern" ?
If the government should interfere in business - can there be "free market economy" ?
Even with the government existing - can the X-rated pseudo-intellect be any more certain that the "Laws of the Jungle" do not exist ?
Or does the X-rated Fraud expect Governments to bail out all failed investments - as it had indicated in the other thread ‘æ–°åŠ å�¡,ä»Žå¼ ç‰™èˆžçˆªåˆ°æ‘‡å°¾ä¹žæ€œï¼Œä»Žæ�©å°†ä»‡æŠ¥åˆ°æ»çš®èµ–脸[转] (*1) - when it had demanded from the ignorant China kid to get China to compensate Singapore for the failed Suzhou Industrial Park Project that was freely offered and insisted by the Singapore Government to show-case its talents ?
Civilised human beings did not step out of the jungle for nothing. Jungle laws were harsh, terrifying and would only doom a tribe to extinction, even with the supposition that the tribe was made up of noble people, which we know nobility is not gifted in equal measure to every human.
The condescending attitude of the X-rated pseudo-intellect obviously does not know of the pleasant life that the primitive tribesmen living as the Lost Tribes in the hills of Papua New Guinea, East Timor, in the Brazilian jungles, and all across the globe.
The world will simply turned on its axis - while the X-rated Fraud continue to live in its own comfort zone with its hoped for wider audience that it will attempt to impress with its condescending speeches based on pompous ideas that it never fail to plagiarize.
Even if the financial crisis had not happened, without govt regulation corporations will instead become dictators of the economy, with their bottomlines being the reason of the existance or annihilation.
Everything else are illusions and the goal is to achieve the targetted bottomlines to pay off shareholders - no reason, no law, no concern, and espacially no welfare to anyone, any society and employees, nothing must get in their way, everything and everyone a fair game, everything to be achieve at any costs, even murder as long as one doesnt get caught. The mighty bottomline is the final reward, which will flow into theirs and their shareholders pockets.
Why has the X-rated Fraud missed the glaring fact the Government in Singapore is above the Law, when the Government becomes a participant in the free economy as part of "capitalism" or "unbridled Capitalism" - and becomes the worst of Capitalism with Government powers to abuse the "Free Market Economy" ?
Is the X-rated Fraud too ashamed to mention the fact that the Singapore Government is not only a Political Autocrat but had also become "dictators of the economy" ?
Nope. Private enterprises should be free from govt interferences, but there must be regulations to ensure a cowboy free for all culture do not exist.
Obviously, the ignorance of the X-rated pseudo-intellect will overlook the Singapore Government involvement in Private Enterprise - closing Statutory Boards and retrenching the Civil Servants, and opening new Private Corporations capitalised by Public Money and staffed by the Civil Servants who were previously retrenched - and to provide the same basic essential service that is required by Singaporeans.
With the Government at every strata of the economy, determining wages, prices, and costings - is this not a "free for all culture" based on the Laws of the Jungle as the PAP Government sees fit to tweak the Law and re-interprete to their own advantage ?
It is certainly revealing the intellectual prowess of the resident X-rated Fraud.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
but in layman term, u hv to agree everything is voice down to cash. now, who created cash?? leading to each asset being worth in term of cash?? Those that created Cash are smart people like the NY jews who knows that there is a way of mean of production in a non-labour condition that can make one many time richer than those toiling and labouring in the field till death.
you should seriously start going back to school....before coming up with this reply.....like i said really YOU only know how to BOOMZ. -
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
you should seriously start going back to school....before coming up with this reply.....like i said really YOU only know how to BOOMZ.Cut her some slack Arapahoe. Why the dismissness? Do you yourself know it all? I dont. Why dont you share instead?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Cut her some slack Arapahoe. Why the dismissness? Do you yourself know it all? I dont. Why dont you share instead?
why dismiss Angel...she defined capital as a totally different topics of money as stored value...The very least she could have yahoo for the definition before Farting......
In classical economics, capital is one of three factors of production, the others being land and labour. Goods with the following features are capital:
It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
It is human-made, in contrast to "land," which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
It is not used up immediately in the process of production, unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.
Hence she needs to hit the books.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
why dismiss Angel...she defined capital as a totally different topics of money as stored value...The very least she could have yahoo for the definition before Farting......
In classical economics, capital is one of three factors of production, the others being land and labour. Goods with the following features are capital:
It can be used in the production of other goods (this is what makes it a factor of production).
It is human-made, in contrast to "land," which refers to naturally occurring resources such as geographical locations and minerals.
It is not used up immediately in the process of production, unlike raw materials or intermediate goods.
Hence she needs to hit the books.
Precisely, why dismiss Angel?
I too have had to hit the books even after I graduated, for learning is an everday affair.
Perhaps, she had oversimplified it, but this is not some presentation to peers, its only a forum for discussion.
When boils to down it, its about STORED VALUE. The land is a stored value due to its minerals and agricultural/commercial value, agreeable to a MANMADE VALUE called CASH when SOLD, as it often does.
GOODs are stored valued as well, for it can be exchanged for CASH, throughout its usuable life span, which DEPRECIATES over time.
Of course there is more, but I would not say that she is wrong. I believe it is only a matter of perception on what is deemed CAPITAL.
Utimately, the critical factor is what we do with it, and how it is used to benefit us or others, regardless of how it is defined in the many different cultures and language of our world. CASH is known to all, from the intellectual to the simply ordinary villager, in whatever lingo and culture, at risk of oversimplifying it so that more may understand.
Again, I hasten to add, I am only offering a perspective, and do not presume i am right, as this is only a discussion, and not a fight. Furthermore the topic is actually CAPITALISM - a concept that is defined in many different manner to many different political thoughts and working professionals.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Precisely, why dismiss Angel?
I too have had to hit the books even after I graduated, for learning is an everday affair.
Perhaps, she had oversimplified it, but this is not some presentation to peers, its only a forum for discussion.
When boils to down it, its about STORED VALUE. The land is a stored value due to its minerals and agricultural/commercial value, agreeable to a MANMADE VALUE called CASH when SOLD, as it often does.
GOODs are stored valued as well, for it can be exchanged for CASH, throughout its usuable life span, which DEPRECIATES over time.
Of course there is more, but I would not say that she is wrong. I believe it is only a matter of perception on what is deemed CAPITAL.
Utimately, the critical factor is what we do with it, and how it is used to benefit us or others, regardless of how it is defined in the many different cultures and language of our world. CASH is known to all, from the intellectual to the simply ordinary villager, in whatever lingo and culture, at risk of oversimplifying it so that more may understand.
Again, I hasten to add, I am only offering a perspective, and do not presume i am right, as this is only a discussion, and not a fight. Furthermore the topic is actually CAPITALISM - a concept that is defined in many different manner to many different political thoughts and working professionals.
The words capital refer to money
perharps i miss out 1 aspect of Angel explination she equate store value as "Wealth"
As stored value is only unit of measurement for the purpose of medium of exchanged. While Wealth is a financial Term to reflect the level of purchasing power. As too there are Economics Profit vs Financial profit....
These are definition I am sure during your Econ class you don't fudge definition do you? ....hence hit the book lor....
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
The words capital refer to money
perharps i miss out 1 aspect of Angel explination she equate store value as "Wealth"
As stored value is only unit of measurement for the purpose of medium of exchanged. While Wealth is a financial Term to reflect the level of purchasing power. As too there are Economics Profit vs Financial profit....
These are definition I am sure during your Econ class you don't fudge definition do you? ....hence hit the book lor....
Sigh...ok. I guess we are on different wavelengths. Me on simplicity for understanding to the masses, but you still stuck on definitions of terms.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Sigh...ok. I guess we are on different wavelengths. Me on simplicity for understanding to the masses, but you still stuck on definitions of terms.
look at it this way at least when u are spending hours in a discussion thread you want to be sured that both of you are talking about Chicken and not fudge over Chicken while the other person is really talking about Duck....There are certain premises in Economics Definition that are afixed. And you can argue over the outcome but from the same premises.....and present your point across...
That is why SB2601 and Deepak trying to explain just to be cleared.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
look at it this way at least when u are spending hours in a discussion thread you want to be sured that both of you are talking about Chicken and not fudge over Chicken while the other person is really talking about Duck....There are certain premises in Economics Definition that are afixed. And you can argue over the outcome but from the same premises.....and present your point across...
That is why SB2601 and Deepak trying to explain just to be cleared.
It is obvious that you cannot discuss 'Economics" with someone who is so economical with its X-rated factor that it ends up being a mere "pseudo-intellect'.
Is it any wonder that it has to admit that its discussion with you is on two "different wavelengths" - as in all matters that it intend to be an expert in by re-interpreting issues based on its skewed "dumbed down" version into nonsensical simplicity ?
It is nothing to wonder about the X-rated skills of a Fraud - who has picked up this "dumbed down" skills from its idol at the NTUC - who is also a million dollar salaried Minister without Portfolio, with his unique immense potential of "dumbing down" any issues to his characteristic "lollipop" style, and making him a favorite speaker with the more tolerant kiddies at the PAP runned kindergartens.
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
look at it this way at least when u are spending hours in a discussion thread you want to be sured that both of you are talking about Chicken and not fudge over Chicken while the other person is really talking about Duck....There are certain premises in Economics Definition that are afixed. And you can argue over the outcome but from the same premises.....and present your point across...
That is why SB2601 and Deepak trying to explain just to be cleared.
Agreed. Wherelse i am attempting to turn complex issue more simply, down to its basics so that more may understand, but you are still stuck in convoluted premises of definition.
Majority of us come from different institution of learnings, its syllabus and teaching method are different, as well as different levels of learnings achieved by many. Some institutions even from overseas.
Thus, its the responsibility of the educated to simplify matters, stick to the basic core of an issue, not use bombastic words to step upon the heads of those who are not familiar with the terms discussed, as the piece of self admitted piece of shit here often does, and uses her illusive play of words to demean, humilate, bully others who do not agree with her views. Such is her way, flaws evidently seen and not lost on all with her credibilities or the lack of it.
What can one expect from a self admitted piece of shit? Shit of course, no matter how she attempts to project an illusive learned status. Her words dig her own grave.