Capitalism is an unbuilt trope

[Masterhawk]

In TvTropes, an unbuilt trope describes the original example of a trope (ur example) or the one that made it popular (trope codifier). The thing about this example is that it will be far more nuanced than examples after it, often citing flaws with it. For example, Issac Assimov came up with the three laws of robotics but his stories also showed their inadequacies. Shrek and South Park inspired many other shows but where those two succeeded while the rest failed was that their brand of humor had a purpose instead of just being there.

I say all of that to say that capitalism is an unbuilt trope. Capitalism was explored and championed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

Most people remember Smith for his famous quote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Or this one:

But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value, every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

What Smith was trying to say was that through people acting in their self interests, society can have its needs met without any central planner. This is the rhetoric which justifies our modern capitalist society today but back in Smith's day, it was radical. Back then, the economy was skewed towards land owning aristocrats and guilds which had government-granted monopolies. Adam Smith never believed that acting in one's self interest to the detriment of society was a good thing. In fact, that was what he was against. Smith believed that a free market would level the playing field.

He said the following in the same book

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.

The Wealth of Nations was not just about describing capitalism, it was about defining how we should think of wealth in the first place. Mercantilism was the dominant economic ideology, predicated on nations accumulating wealth. This entailed maximizing domestic production, minimizing trade deficits, and hoarding gold. Smith was trying to point out that this viewpoint doesn't really make sense. It seems obvious to us now that there's little point in every country hoarding wealth if nobody is left better off but that was how things were done back then. Smith proposed an economic system centered around individuals accumulating wealth as that's the ultimate point of an economy. As such Smith and Ricardo were pro free trade with the latter inventing the law of comparative advantage.

With that said, Smith did have a few points that indicate that he would not have been a big fan of Ayn Rand. Firstly was self interest which Smith also wrote the following in another book: A Theory of Moral Sentiments

To disturb his happiness merely because it stands in the way of our own, to take from him what is of real use to him merely because it may be of equal or of more use to us, or to indulge, in this manner, at the expense of other people, the natural preference which every man has for his own happiness above that of other people, is what no impartial spectator can go along with

 

[Masterhawk]

Part 2
Another is the the nature of the market for land. You see, the amount of land is fixed. Even John Locke who invented the labor theory of property added that it only holds true as long as there's land left to claim.

As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.

Smith was specifically referring to the nobility but it's not hard to see how this could apply to land speculators today.

Smith proposed a tax on the value of land which would be similar to a property tax except it would only tax the value of the land itself rather than the improvements on top of it. This would be the ideal tax because it would not take a cut of labor or capital, incurring no deadweight loss.

Both ground- rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. The annual produce of the land and labour of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground-rents, and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps the species of revenue which can best bear to have a peculiar tax imposed upon them.

Smith also saw it as essential for the state to be involved in justice, defense, and public works (projects which are costly but ultimately serve the public such as bridges, roads, and other projects).

To say the least, the father of capitalism did not see it as flawless but rather saw it as a better alternative to mercantilism.

 

[Grim17]

For those who like to criticize capitalist based governments/economies, I have just one request...

Name a system that is more successful, that benefits more people in a society while at the same time oppressing fewer?

.

 

[Exquisitor]

For those who like to criticize capitalist based governments/economies, I have just one request...

Name a system that is more successful, that benefits more people in a society while at the same time oppressing fewer?

Twasn't Capitalism, it was the resources of the New World, that only won, because the Soviets blundered and invaded Afghanistan.

But as far as helping people, God gave us the Constitution and regulations and Unions are required along with non-profits, charities and social spending.

 

[Indlib]

For those who like to criticize capitalist based governments/economies, I have just one request...

Name a system that is more successful, that benefits more people in a society while at the same time oppressing fewer?

.

As a liberal, I support capitalism. I just feel it doesn't work as well in certain areas. Education and health care are a couple examples.

 

[psikeyhackr]

When Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations 50% of Brits were illiterate. But he used the phrase, "read, write, and account" five times in WoN. So it is curious that the various advocates of economic ideologies do not propose mandatory accounting in the schools.

The people who brag about capitalism are taking the credit for what was accomplished by technology. When Karl Marx died the second industrial revolution was just getting started. By the 1920s technology had made productivity so high that planned obsolescence started. So we are applying obsolete economic thinking to modern technology and ignoring the depreciation of all of the consumer trash that is manufactured.

http://www.toxicdrums.com/economic-wargames-by-dal-timgar.html

 

[Ug make hammer]

Nations themselves accumulating wealth, actually does make sense in the event of war. Britain's empire was cashed in for ships and ammo, in WW2. Meanwhile the Swiss bought off the Nazis by offering to be their bankers (accumulated capital there). The Soviets were notorious for hoarding gold, as they had too little trade with the West to collect dollars, and the ruble was too fragile to endure war.

 

[Ug make hammer]

When Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations 50% of Brits were illiterate. But he used the phrase, "read, write, and account" five times in WoN. So it is curious that the various advocates of economic ideologies do not propose mandatory accounting in the schools.

The people who brag about capitalism are taking the credit for what was accomplished by technology. When Karl Marx died the second industrial revolution was just getting started. By the 1920s technology had made productivity so high that planned obsolescence started. So we are applying obsolete economic thinking to modern technology and ignoring the depreciation of all of the consumer trash that is manufactured.

This is interesting, except that accounting for so much depreciation wouldn't our economy be permanently shrinking? I'm pretty sure we would have noticed.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This is interesting, except that accounting for so much depreciation wouldn't our economy be permanently shrinking? I'm pretty sure we would have noticed.

GDP is a measure of Cash Flow.

If the wealth of A goes down and GDP goes up and the wealth of B goes up by a fraction of A's loss, is that economic growth?

When consumers buy new products to replace junk that they had to throw away that adds to GDP. But notice that our so called economists do not care much about the Net Worth of most of the population and do not suggest that accounting/finance be mandatory in the schools.

Check out:

The Screwing of the Average Man by David Hapgood

Book Reviews, Sites, Romance, Fantasy, Fiction | Kirkus Reviews

www.kirkusreviews.com

 

[Grim17]

Twasn't Capitalism, it was the resources of the New World, that only won, because the Soviets blundered and invaded Afghanistan.

I asked what government/economic system is better than a capitalist one?

 

[Grim17]

As a liberal, I support capitalism. I just feel it doesn't work as well in certain areas. Education and health care are a couple examples.

I'm the first to admit that capitalism has it's flaws, but there hasn't been a system created that's a better choice.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I asked what government/economic system is better than a capitalist one?

Considering what Adam Smith said about education and no country I know of advocates mandatory accounting in the schools maybe true capitalism has never been tried. Our so called schools are really designed to produce brainwashed workers.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Mercantilism has been mentioned, but imo it's more a strategic policy choice than a form of government.

Small nations sometimes have such corrupt governments that they are kleptocratic. They may be formally democracies, however votes are bought or vote counters corrupted, so they may as well be one-party or dictatorships.

The economic system capitalism does not imply or require a government type democracy is what I'm saying.

A corollary is that mixed-market capitalism does not mean compromise of democracy. Democracy could literally be communist, if that's what the majority want.

 

[Slartibartfast]

For those who like to criticize capitalist based governments/economies, I have just one request...

Name a system that is more successful, that benefits more people in a society while at the same time oppressing fewer?

.

The thought that there is an either/or choice these days is quite antiquated. Now we mix and match aspects from various systems.

 

[Lafayette]

I say all of that to say that capitalism is an unbuilt trope.

Capitalism is no trope (built or unbuilt) - meaning "a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression."

It is not "figurative" either. It is the foundation stone of any modern economy. How that economy is run is the responsibility of those elected to make decisions regarding the key elements of its economy. Of which the most important is like interest-rates - since the exchange of money-for-goods/services is most often decided by the value of money-rates.

We've learned in the last century that Communism is anti-democratic, which is why it failed. But, it was no "trope" either.

So what is capitalism? It is damn simple - since the days when mankind FINALLY invented "money" then barter was replaced. The very fact that an economy uses money (capital) as an instrument-of-exchange (for example, money for work) is not a "tropism".

It is the basic foundation stone of any economy of a national characteristic defined by the laws of Supply&Demand. Which is the basic definition of the means by which people exist at present.

And if based on capitalism, it aint no trope ... !

 

[Ginger Ale]

I asked what government/economic system is better than a capitalist one?

I'm not quite sure what you're asking but I find that a social democracy with a free market seems to give the best quality of life. I'm not alone in this thinking. When it comes to quality of life America is not even in the top ten. So one thing is for sure, Capitalism doesn't give the majority of those participating in it quality of life, just a few. That has been a constant disadvantage to capitalism we cannot seem to correct. Instead, Capitalists just ask for endless defense of this system. It's very difficult to make adjustments to a limited capitalist Government. It just ends up becoming a NO fest. IMO, of course.

• Canada.
• Denmark
• Sweden
• Norway
• Australia
• Switzerland
• Finland
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Germany

These 10 countries have the best quality of life

The U.S. News & World Report 2018 Best Countries list reveals the countries who offer their citizens the best quality of life.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Lafayette]

Capitalism doesn't give the majority of those participating in it quality of life, just a few. That has been a constant disadvantage to capitalism we cannot seem to correct.

If you look beyond the three mile limit and the Canadian border there are examples. The only problem is that in the discussion people assume that "capitalism" is practiced only in the US.

The definition of capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

There is not a country in the European Union that is purely socialist. The prevailing parties are Social Democrat. Which means a capitalist financial-system with a liberal-democracy - and both coexist. What does that mean?

It means, for instance, that in Europe Healthcare is run by governments and post-secondary education is nearly free, gratis and for nothing. The quality of life you espouse is provided by means, for instance, of healthcare that does not cost an extravagant amount of money (which means lifespan is about 4-years longer than in the US). The ability to earn a higher income depends upon your level of education - which is also very modest in cost.

And that's all ... !

 

[Bullseye]

As a liberal, I support capitalism. I just feel it doesn't work as well in certain areas. Education and health care are a couple examples.

I'm not sure education really falls under the aegis of capitalism, although a well educated population certainly fosters capitalism. I'd also mention the current healthcare system in the US is far from capitalist; the government controls a huge percentage of that sector.

 

[Exquisitor]

I asked what government/economic system is better than a capitalist one?

A hybrid.

 

[Ginger Ale]

If you look beyond the three mile limit and the Canadian border there are examples. The only problem is that in the discussion people assume that "capitalism" is practiced only in the US.

The definition of capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

There is not a country in the European Union that is purely socialist. The prevailing parties are Social Democrat. Which means a capitalist financial-system with a liberal-democracy - and both coexist. What does that mean?

It means, for instance, that in Europe Healthcare is run by governments and post-secondary education is nearly free, gratis and for nothing. The quality of life you espouse is provided by means, for instance, of healthcare that does not cost an extravagant amount of money (which means lifespan is about 4-years longer than in the US). The ability to earn a higher income depends upon your level of education - which is also very modest in cost.

And that's all ... !

Like I said, a social democracy and a free market seem to be the best balance to me and countries with it who are polled seem to be happier. Makes sense.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Replacement for dead link in post #6:

Economic Wargames

The global economy is a giant multilevel, multiplayer chess game. It is however, being played in the dark. The powers that be, have the overhead lights switched off. To have any chance you need a flashlight, and that would still leave the problems of learning the rules and developing your...

blog.lostsoulscorp.com

 

[spud_meister]

For those who like to criticize capitalist based governments/economies, I have just one request...

Name a system that is more successful, that benefits more people in a society while at the same time oppressing fewer?

.

Umm, communism.

In India, for example, the arrival of capitalism from the East India Company up to end of the British Raj saw GDP per capita fall. It saw the increase in famine and poverty, the purchasing power of Indian families fall. This was coupled with widespread violence and famine, resulting in 165 million deaths in the period from 1880-1920.

We can compare that to Cuba, where post-revolutionary Cubans enjoyed greater health and education, more job opportunities, greater equality, less crime and less brutal policing than they did under the capitalist Batista regime.

 

[multivita-man]

I admit that I am probably a lot more open to some form of socialism, communism, or whatever the **** we want to call it than I ever have been. Capitalism is probably the freest and fairest system when there's abundance. When there's scarcity and ecological overshoot, pro-growth capitalism is collective suicide. We have no choice but to end growth, and end it soon. I doubt we will, though, so over the cliff on a bus we go.

 

[bomberfox]

In TvTropes, an unbuilt trope describes the original example of a trope (ur example) or the one that made it popular (trope codifier). The thing about this example is that it will be far more nuanced than examples after it, often citing flaws with it. For example, Issac Assimov came up with the three laws of robotics but his stories also showed their inadequacies. Shrek and South Park inspired many other shows but where those two succeeded while the rest failed was that their brand of humor had a purpose instead of just being there.

I say all of that to say that capitalism is an unbuilt trope. Capitalism was explored and championed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

Most people remember Smith for his famous quote:

Or this one:

What Smith was trying to say was that through people acting in their self interests, society can have its needs met without any central planner. This is the rhetoric which justifies our modern capitalist society today but back in Smith's day, it was radical. Back then, the economy was skewed towards land owning aristocrats and guilds which had government-granted monopolies. Adam Smith never believed that acting in one's self interest to the detriment of society was a good thing. In fact, that was what he was against. Smith believed that a free market would level the playing field.

He said the following in the same book

The Wealth of Nations was not just about describing capitalism, it was about defining how we should think of wealth in the first place. Mercantilism was the dominant economic ideology, predicated on nations accumulating wealth. This entailed maximizing domestic production, minimizing trade deficits, and hoarding gold. Smith was trying to point out that this viewpoint doesn't really make sense. It seems obvious to us now that there's little point in every country hoarding wealth if nobody is left better off but that was how things were done back then. Smith proposed an economic system centered around individuals accumulating wealth as that's the ultimate point of an economy. As such Smith and Ricardo were pro free trade with the latter inventing the law of comparative advantage.

With that said, Smith did have a few points that indicate that he would not have been a big fan of Ayn Rand. Firstly was self interest which Smith also wrote the following in another book: A Theory of Moral Sentiments

Im reminded about nearly every family guy spinoffs being complete flops. Especially the British one.

As for Adam Smith, most of his modern day acolytes dont really understand Smith’s whole writings as he advocated a lot of things that republicans find distasteful like a progressive tax system, against monopolization, and the labor theory of value.

Its good that you include the times Smith was writing in and that is important.

 

[Deuce]

For those who like to criticize capitalist based governments/economies, I have just one request...

Name a system that is more successful, that benefits more people in a society while at the same time oppressing fewer?

.

Depends on which definition of socialism right wingers are using this week