mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (03/10/85)
I try to stay out of this but..... I don't have any problem with people or institutions receiving a fair return on capital investments, it's the claim to perpetual ownership of the profits from the funded enterprise that bothers me. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
esco@ssc-vax.UUCP (Michael Esco) (03/15/85)
> > I don't have any problem with people or institutions receiving > a fair return on capital investments, it's the claim to > perpetual ownership of the profits from the funded enterprise that > bothers me. > Mark Roddy I hate to put it this bluntly, but this statement makes the least sense of any I've seen on the net. Perpetual ownership of the profit (through dividends or capital gains) is by definition the fair return on a capital investment. That I should still be getting a dividend from common stock I bought X years ago is exactly what I paid for at the time. If you don't understand what I mean by the above, you don't understand the idea of capitalism. If you don't understand capitalism, try taking an accounting class. I recommend accounting over economics (for a novice) because the accounting teacher is more likely to be a capitalist. Michael Esco Boeing Aerospace (if only I'd read `Atlas Shrugged' before taking Econ 1...)
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (03/17/85)
Well I knew I was asking to get flamed, what with all the apologists for rampant capitalism on the net, but I posted a (forgive me,) small criticism of our economic system for a reason. I am not a marxist, I agree with the critics of marxism, and I can see the results of the experiments with "scientific socialsim." I am not a socialist, Government is least able to run enterprises. I am not a capitalist, I am not rich, and I agree with the marxists and the socialists that capitalism is an exploitive system that serves the interests of a small ruling class. I think that libertarians have a problem seeing "government" as anything other than state officials. I would probably classify myself as an anarchist, except I agree that there ain't no way to get there from here. So that leaves me without ideology, and without the smug righteousness that emanates from the camps of the true believers of all persuasions. > > I hate to put it this bluntly, but this statement makes the least sense of > any I've seen on the net. Thank you for your keen analysis. > > Perpetual ownership of the profit (through dividends or capital gains) is > by definition the fair return on a capital investment. That I should still > be getting a dividend from common stock I bought X years ago is exactly what > I paid for at the time. > Oh, I understand, the definition of a thing is the justification of that thing. So a slave who complains about the institution of slavery, saying that maybe it is a bit unfair, is a fool. it is written right here that slavery is an institution whereby some people are owned by others. "After all I bought X years ago, and the use of X is exactly what I paid for at the time." > If you don't understand what I mean by the above, you don't understand the idea > of capitalism. If you don't understand capitalism, try taking an accounting > class. I recommend accounting over economics (for a novice) because the > accounting teacher is more likely to be a capitalist. Apparently, understanding==accepting. -- Mark Roddy Net working, Just reading the news. (harvard!talcott!panda!enmasse!mroddy)
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/21/85)
> > > > I don't have any problem with people or institutions receiving > > a fair return on capital investments, it's the claim to > > perpetual ownership of the profits from the funded enterprise that > > bothers me. > > Mark Roddy > > Perpetual ownership of the profit (through dividends or capital gains) is > by definition the fair return on a capital investment. That I should still > be getting a dividend from common stock I bought X years ago is exactly what > I paid for at the time. > > If you don't understand what I mean by the above, you don't understand the idea > of capitalism. > Michael Esco I think that Mr. Roddy's statement shows a keen understanding of Capitalism. And it is precisely this idea that ownership implies the right to expropriate from others labor that is objectionable about Capitalism. Why should the Rockefellers be guaranteed an enormous income for the rest of their life irregardless of their own effort? Not only the present generation of Rockefellers but their children and their children's children and their children's children's children, ad infinitum? Is this really any different than the inheritance of feudal fiefs by a landed aristocracy? The only difference is the inheritance of manufacturing fiefs by a capitalized aristocracy i.e. the mode of production and the way in which one class dominates another has changed. The class domination remains. tim sevener whuxl!orb