4 ms·

Capital + ism - the idea that capital should govern the flow of all resources.

by erikpukinskis 9y ago

thaumasiotes 9y ago
What do you think the difference is between "capital" and "resources"?
- badosu 9y ago
  Perhaps a better term is that it's the ideology where 'capital' and 'resources' should flow through supply and demand with some additional rules such as private property and being able to organize into corporations.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Property law turns a resource into a resource with an owner, i.e. capital. The idea of property is the legal implementation of capitalism.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  "Capital" is generally defined as something like "productive output reserved for future productive capacity". See for example most of Schumpeter. "Resources" would be any factors of production. Traditionally these are land, labour, capital, and ... well, things vary, but "entrepreneurship" is what the page I'm looking at argues for: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/economic-definition-four-factors-production-3941.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/economic-definition-four-fact... Answering your question: "capital" is a subset of "resources". "Resources" are a superset of "capital". The question of what ought to be considered as factors of production is ... an interesting one. The list largely comes from cost accounting, and economists picked the items which dominated the cost-accounting sheets, which was pretty much "labour". Capital and other elements were added later. Much of the foundations of this seems to come from Alexander Hamilton Church[1] Among the interesting alternative discussions I've run across of factors of production comes from Count Leo Tolstoy, in What Shall We Do Then: https://archive.org/stream/whatshallwedothe00tolsrich#page/100/mode/2up/search/factors+of+production https://archive.org/stream/whatshallwedothe00tolsrich#page/1... ________________________________ Notes: 1. And yes, there appears a possible connection to the other A.H.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church#cite_note-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church#cite...
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    Is there any definition of "capital" which (a) is justified by some principle other than pure historical usage; and (b) doesn't include land? I can sort of see where labor would be different, but to me it looks like land is squarely in the middle of the "capital" concept.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      What's the goal of your question? Are you asking for the common and accepted definition of capital, or for any possible definition. Language itself is a common set of symbols and pointers providing for a shared set of mental models amongst various actors. Generally the most common definition should be the guiding one, much as the most preferred medium of payment becomes a de facto currency (and for many of the same reasons). If you want a standard definition of capital I'd suggest looking at those provided by a source such as Investopedia or leading economics texts, probably Paul Krugman or Gregory Mankiw's, though there are many, with one fair list at Reddit's /r/Economics: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading. Otherwise, you might hit up DDG for econ 1 or econ 101 syllabi and recommended readings. If you're looking for the broadest possible set of definitions, well, there are many, with varying levels of acceptance, but the answers probably aren't particularly useful. Another possible angle would be to ask what I personally think about factors of production, and what they are. My thoughts are in flux. And, as a Space Alien Cat, they frequently have little or no real world significance or impact. Steve Keen, though, is doing some very interesting work, in and since Debunking Economics, and I'd strongly urge following him. Among other elements, he's looking at the role of energy in economic production (he's one of numerous people to have done so, over the past century or more, though the idea's never really caught on, far the worse reflection on the economic orthodoxy than the notion itself). I've been looking at the question of what technology itself is, or more specifically, what its mechanisms, of which I've identified roughly nine: fuel and fuel-based systems, energy transmission and transformation, materials, technical knowledge, scientific knowledge, information, networks, systems, and hygiene factors. (Concept still under development, some discussion at https://dredmorbius.reddit.com https://dredmorbius.reddit.com) It's recently occurred to me that virtually all of these are factors of production, though they're not all the factors of production. There's the question of what labour itself is, and what its components and mechanisms are, and how they've changed. It's useful to keep in mind that until roughly 1800, a tremendous percentage of actual motive force was supplied by human or animal muscle. And our sense of what these contribute has changed markedly. The present formulation of labour does have many elements of capital to it, and that's reflected in extant terminology (e.g., "human capital" and "intellectual capital"), so your observations have some validity and currency. As noted above, much of the mainstream factors-of-production has far more to do with tracking payments than functional mechanisms. I see considerable room for refinement.
humanrebar 9y ago
Is Calvinism the idea that Calvins should govern the flow of all resources? No, capitalism emphasizes individual sovereignty over property, voluntary transactions, crowd-sourcing in determining the value of goods and services, and some related implications. All functioning societies have these things to some degree whether they like it or not.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Capitalism allows for many involuntary transactions. And there are many ways to crowd source value determination without capitalism. But you are correct “individual sovereignty over property” and “capitalism” are more or less the same idea.

Capital + ism - the idea that capital should govern the flow of all resources.

thaumasiotes 9y ago

What do you think the difference is between "capital" and "resources"?

badosu 9y ago
Perhaps a better term is that it's the ideology where 'capital' and 'resources' should flow through supply and demand with some additional rules such as private property and being able to organize into corporations.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
Property law turns a resource into a resource with an owner, i.e. capital. The idea of property is the legal implementation of capitalism.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
dredmorbius 9y ago
"Capital" is generally defined as something like "productive output reserved for future productive capacity". See for example most of Schumpeter. "Resources" would be any factors of production. Traditionally these are land, labour, capital, and ... well, things vary, but "entrepreneurship" is what the page I'm looking at argues for: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/economic-definition-four-factors-production-3941.html http://smallbusiness.chron.com/economic-definition-four-fact... Answering your question: "capital" is a subset of "resources". "Resources" are a superset of "capital". The question of what ought to be considered as factors of production is ... an interesting one. The list largely comes from cost accounting, and economists picked the items which dominated the cost-accounting sheets, which was pretty much "labour". Capital and other elements were added later. Much of the foundations of this seems to come from Alexander Hamilton Church[1] Among the interesting alternative discussions I've run across of factors of production comes from Count Leo Tolstoy, in What Shall We Do Then: https://archive.org/stream/whatshallwedothe00tolsrich#page/100/mode/2up/search/factors+of+production https://archive.org/stream/whatshallwedothe00tolsrich#page/1... ________________________________ Notes: 1. And yes, there appears a possible connection to the other A.H.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church#cite_note-7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church#cite...
- thaumasiotes 9y ago
  Is there any definition of "capital" which (a) is justified by some principle other than pure historical usage; and (b) doesn't include land? I can sort of see where labor would be different, but to me it looks like land is squarely in the middle of the "capital" concept.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    What's the goal of your question? Are you asking for the common and accepted definition of capital, or for any possible definition. Language itself is a common set of symbols and pointers providing for a shared set of mental models amongst various actors. Generally the most common definition should be the guiding one, much as the most preferred medium of payment becomes a de facto currency (and for many of the same reasons). If you want a standard definition of capital I'd suggest looking at those provided by a source such as Investopedia or leading economics texts, probably Paul Krugman or Gregory Mankiw's, though there are many, with one fair list at Reddit's /r/Economics: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/wiki/reading. Otherwise, you might hit up DDG for econ 1 or econ 101 syllabi and recommended readings. If you're looking for the broadest possible set of definitions, well, there are many, with varying levels of acceptance, but the answers probably aren't particularly useful. Another possible angle would be to ask what I personally think about factors of production, and what they are. My thoughts are in flux. And, as a Space Alien Cat, they frequently have little or no real world significance or impact. Steve Keen, though, is doing some very interesting work, in and since Debunking Economics, and I'd strongly urge following him. Among other elements, he's looking at the role of energy in economic production (he's one of numerous people to have done so, over the past century or more, though the idea's never really caught on, far the worse reflection on the economic orthodoxy than the notion itself). I've been looking at the question of what technology itself is, or more specifically, what its mechanisms, of which I've identified roughly nine: fuel and fuel-based systems, energy transmission and transformation, materials, technical knowledge, scientific knowledge, information, networks, systems, and hygiene factors. (Concept still under development, some discussion at https://dredmorbius.reddit.com https://dredmorbius.reddit.com) It's recently occurred to me that virtually all of these are factors of production, though they're not all the factors of production. There's the question of what labour itself is, and what its components and mechanisms are, and how they've changed. It's useful to keep in mind that until roughly 1800, a tremendous percentage of actual motive force was supplied by human or animal muscle. And our sense of what these contribute has changed markedly. The present formulation of labour does have many elements of capital to it, and that's reflected in extant terminology (e.g., "human capital" and "intellectual capital"), so your observations have some validity and currency. As noted above, much of the mainstream factors-of-production has far more to do with tracking payments than functional mechanisms. I see considerable room for refinement.

humanrebar 9y ago

Is Calvinism the idea that Calvins should govern the flow of all resources? No, capitalism emphasizes individual sovereignty over property, voluntary transactions, crowd-sourcing in determining the value of goods and services, and some related implications. All functioning societies have these things to some degree whether they like it or not.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
erikpukinskis 9y ago
Capitalism allows for many involuntary transactions. And there are many ways to crowd source value determination without capitalism. But you are correct “individual sovereignty over property” and “capitalism” are more or less the same idea.