Large Scale Central

New law may close small toy makers

General Discussion
#21
Mik said:
Hmmm, did I hit a little too close for comfort? And why shouldn't I lecture you on how to "properly" raise a kid? You lecture me and everybody else on every subject dear to the left. :)

Seems to me if the problem is Chinese made crap, then don’t buy it, and don’t let your kid play with it, even on a “playdate”, Tell your relatives what they can and can’t buy for YOUR child… got to be at least as easy as telling me what I should believe. If they don’t listen, ask them to exchange it for something you approve of, or toss it right in front of them. They’ll get over it in time for the graduation.


I really don’t care what you believe. I just like discussion. You seem to mistake argumentation–argumentation that tries to use logic and facts–for coercion. Don’t cry about it, make a better argument.

Here you are lecturing me about how to raise a child. You know absolutely zero–nothing–about my family and how we raise our children. But it doesn’t stop you from telling me what you think I do wrong. That’s known as ignorance, in every sense of the word.

On the other hand politics is public, the information involved is public. I can have an informed opinion about politics, but not about your family life, which I know absolutely nothing about. So I would never presume to tell you how to raise your family. I was raised with better manners.

#22
Ric Golding said:
Mike, Would you consider the lead painted toys a form of terrorism or just capitalism?
Ric I don't understand your question. I'd say neither, but mostly I'm just confused by your question

I suppose it could be terrorism if the goal was to pour lead all over, say, rattles for infants, and then tell everybody you did it, but not reveal who you were.

Is it “just capitalism?” well, you asked. No–capitalism isn’t the same as trade or doing business. They were doing trade in the middle ages–they had markets and they bought and sold for a profit. But that’s not the same as capitalism. “Capitalism” is an economic system where money lending is the primary form of wealth creation. in the idle ages, for example, the church prohibited usery, moneylending, as a sin. There was little reason to accumulate more than you could spend. Investment in the modern sense of “I lend you money and you pay me interest” wasn’t much in evidence. It’s a long story. Capitalism is a system where the holding of capital–money–becomes a greater source of wealth than, say, making and selling goods. Andrew Carnegie got to a point here he made more from interest than he did from steel–that’s capitalism.

So no, a guy who knowingly makes toys that are poisonous is not just capitalism, he’s just an immoral jerk, and a criminal, and we’ve had those since long before capitalism

#23
mike omalley said:
Mik said:
Hmmm, did I hit a little too close for comfort? And why shouldn't I lecture you on how to "properly" raise a kid? You lecture me and everybody else on every subject dear to the left. :)

Seems to me if the problem is Chinese made crap, then don’t buy it, and don’t let your kid play with it, even on a “playdate”, Tell your relatives what they can and can’t buy for YOUR child… got to be at least as easy as telling me what I should believe. If they don’t listen, ask them to exchange it for something you approve of, or toss it right in front of them. They’ll get over it in time for the graduation.


I really don’t care what you believe. I just like discussion. You seem to mistake argumentation–argumentation that tries to use logic and facts–for coercion. Don’t cry about it, make a better argument.

Here you are lecturing me about how to raise a child. You know absolutely zero–nothing–about my family and how we raise our children. But it doesn’t stop you from telling me what you think I do wrong. That’s known as ignorance, in every sense of the word.

On the other hand politics is public, the information involved is public. I can have an informed opinion about politics, but not about your family life, which I know absolutely nothing about. So I would never presume to tell you how to raise your family. I was raised with better manners.


Right on Mike.
I like discussion too.
Continue to take the high road.
And as always, consider the source.
Ralph

#24

Okay - here we go again.

Mike, you said - “Capitalism is a system where the holding of capital–money–becomes a greater source of wealth than, say, making and selling goods. Andrew Carnegie got to a point here he made more from interest than he did from steel–that’s capitalism.”

Where did you get that definition?

I thought and still think Capitalism is - an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.

I didn’t think my question was that difficult. I was just wondering who you were blaming for the lead based paint on the toys. Was it someone creating a product or some conspiracy theory. I didn’t mean to confuse you.

#25

Wealth was privately owned in the middle ages–was that capitalism? Private property predates capitalism and you could have private property under feudalism, as i the middle ages. Your definition comes from the cold war, when it was described as capitalism, featuring individualized ownership, vs communism, featuring collectivized ownership. But there was private ownership long before there was capitalism, so it’s not a very accurate definition.

It’s called “capitalism” because of the importance of “capital” and capital formation. “Capital” could just be called “surplus money” and it’s lent out at interest. In pre modern societies–like, say, England in 1700-they generally believed that “wealth” consisted of tangible, finite goods, like gold or timber or acres of land: you could only get richer by getting more of that stuff to flow your way. They believed wealth was finite: no one could make more of it, just as no one could make more gold. You could only get it from somebody else, by trade or by war.

But does anybody today believe there is a limit on how rich the world can get? No–we now tend to believe wealth is infinite, because we see wealth not as simply tangible goods, but as the creative power of capital. Capital can be invested to make money from someone else’s labor: it earns interest. Pre capitalist people tended to be very anxious about moneylending and believed it to be a sin–even the Puritans. There were only six banks in the United States in 1800–banks were rare, because they did not understand money the way we do today. Muslims still believe today that lending money is a sin.

So capitalism, to me, is not private ownership or trade or profit making–all those things were around in 1300. It’s a social and economic system that emphasizes holding and lending capital

#26
Ralph Berg said:
Continue to take the high road. And as always, consider the source. Ralph
The high road is? Preach and preach, and when you get a little of your own medicine back call it "garbage" or "bad manners"? Bit hypocritical. wot? "Discussion" involves both parties taking turns actually LISTENING as well as talking. "Debate" is where you respond to what the other says and try to refute it. Shouting at each other and not hearing any opinion but your own is? Politics? A bad marriage? Definitely not discussion.

I considered the source when I worded my reply. MOST of it was general, it appears he took all of it personal, as usual.

#27
Mik said:
Ralph Berg said:
Continue to take the high road. And as always, consider the source. Ralph
The high road is? Preach and preach, and when you get a little of your own medicine back call it "garbage" or "bad manners"? Bit hypocritical. wot? "Discussion" involves both parties taking turns actually LISTENING as well as talking. "Debate" is where you respond to what the other says and try to refute it. Shouting at each other and not hearing any opinion but your own is? Politics? A bad marriage? Definitely not discussion.

I considered the source when I worded my reply. MOST of it was general, it appears he took all of it personal, as usual.


I’d be happy to listen if you knew what you were talking about, but since you don’t why bother? I’ll be happy to listen to you on some subject where you have actual information

#28

Mike,

You said - “Your definition comes from the cold war, when it was described as capitalism, featuring individualized ownership, vs communism, featuring collectivized ownership.”

Yes, my definition comes from a forced fed public education system during the cold war of the 50’s and 60’s. The public education teachers tried to force feed us that communism was the way of the future and socialism was a better system than capitalism.

To me capitalism is “free will” to earn and spend what is your’s for what you want.

#29
mike omalley said:
Wealth was privately owned in the middle ages--was that capitalism? Private property predates capitalism and you could have private property under feudalism, as i the middle ages.
Most of Mike's quote was deleted, because I want to discuss just this point.

Mike, a very good argument can be made that wealth in the middle ages was owned by the government, in that the landed aristocracy only managed, not owned outright, the property, at the pleasure of the king. If the king was displeased, the aristocrat in the feudal system not only lost the land that he was managing in trust for the king, but very often his head, as well. The serfs did not even own the roof over their heads.

By the way, I’m still waiting for your thesis on Taffey 3. Having trouble?

#30
Ric Golding said:
Yes, my definition comes from a forced fed public education system during the cold war of the 50's and 60's. The public education teachers tried to force feed us that communism was the way of the future and socialism was a better system than capitalism.
Ric I'm getting a vaguely hostile vibe from you and I'm not sure why. I wasn't trying to pick a fight, it's just that capitalism probably has a different meaning historically than its meaning in general use. Most historians would, I think, see it as a very specific social and economic system that arises at a certain period in history, whereas I think you want to see it as "freedom of choice and individual property rights." That's certainly part of capitalism, but think about, say, slaveholders. It was cheaper to just pay wages, as they did in the north and as they would do after 1865. But in the South they persisted in a way of life in which slaveowners had private property, and freedom of choice, but maybe weren't capitalists. You could easily argue that Jefferson, who loved individual property rights and freedom of choice and who wrote the Declaration, for the most part, was not a capitalist--he hated banks and he wanted America to be a society of yeoman farmers who had little or no contact with the market. Hamilton, on the other hand, is a capitalist: he wants a central bank, he wants wage labor and industry. He famously argued "a national debt is a national blessing."
#31
Steve Featherkile said:
mike omalley said:
Wealth was privately owned in the middle ages--was that capitalism? Private property predates capitalism and you could have private property under feudalism, as i the middle ages.
Most of Mike's quote was deleted, because I want to discuss just this point.

Mike, a very good argument can be made that wealth in the middle ages was owned by the government, in that the landed aristocracy only managed, not owned outright, the property, at the pleasure of the king. If the king was displeased, the aristocrat in the feudal system not only lost the land that he was managing in trust for the king, but very often his head, as well. The serfs did not even own the roof over their heads.


In the sense that eminent domain vests power over all property in the government, then as now, yes, the king owns all property and could take it at his pleasure. But you could certainly own a cow or an ox; you could own an indentured servant, you could own personal belongings; you could own a house and tools. My simple point is just that private property does not equal capitalism, though of course it’s part of it. There are many instances of personal private property without capitalism

#32
mike omalley said:
I'd be happy to listen if you knew what you were talking about, but since you don't why bother? I'll be happy to listen to you on some subject where you have actual information
Arrogant bastard ain't ya. Guess, since you know all, I don't need to post here anymore. Thank you for pointing out I'm such an unwashed yahoo that I'm only entitled to YOUR opinion.

And I hope your kid turns out just like you. I’m gone.

#33

Mike,

There was no intention to be hostile, but I’ve never heard of your theories or definitions of capitalism. And I find it frustrating that you may be sharing your theories with students that may not challenge you. I did a quick Google search, looked it up in a rather dated Webster’s dictionary and all agreed with what I had learned, that “capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit”.

Now understand I come from an era when gay meant happy, negroe was a race, queer was a person with strange sexual desires and American was never hyphenated. All that now seems to be unacceptable and I don’t really feel that old.

Your statement - “In the sense that eminent domain vests power over all property in the government, then as now, yes, the king owns all property and could take it at his pleasure. But you could certainly own a cow or an ox; you could own an indentured servant, you could own personal belongings; you could own a house and tools. My simple point is just that private property does not equal capitalism, though of course it’s part of it. There are many instances of personal private property without capitalism.”

You have just given the best argument for the Second Amendment that I have ever heard. :wink:

#34
Mik said:
mike omalley said:
I'd be happy to listen if you knew what you were talking about, but since you don't why bother? I'll be happy to listen to you on some subject where you have actual information
Arrogant bastard ain't ya. Guess, since you know all, I don't need to post here anymore. Thank you for pointing out I'm such an unwashed yahoo that I'm only entitled to YOUR opinion.

And I hope your kid turns out just like you. I’m gone.


Mike,
I guess it is survival of the fittest.
You catch more cr*p than anybody here.
They haven’t been able to run you off yet.
And I’m sure you will be thrilled if your kid’s turn out “just like you”.
Ralph

#35
Ralph Berg said:
Mik said:
mike omalley said:
I'd be happy to listen if you knew what you were talking about, but since you don't why bother? I'll be happy to listen to you on some subject where you have actual information
Arrogant bastard ain't ya. Guess, since you know all, I don't need to post here anymore. Thank you for pointing out I'm such an unwashed yahoo that I'm only entitled to YOUR opinion.

And I hope your kid turns out just like you. I’m gone.


Mike,
I guess it is survival of the fittest.
You catch more crp than anybody here.
They haven’t been able to run you off yet.
And I’m sure you will be thrilled if your kid’s turn out “just like you”.
Ralph

Aside from the fact that Mike is such an inspirational railroad modeler, the arrogant bst*rd is fun to fence with. He always gives as good as he gets. Besides, a true liberal is an endangered species. :lol:

#36
mike omalley said:
Steve Featherkile said:
mike omalley said:
Wealth was privately owned in the middle ages--was that capitalism? Private property predates capitalism and you could have private property under feudalism, as i the middle ages.
Most of Mike's quote was deleted, because I want to discuss just this point.

Mike, a very good argument can be made that wealth in the middle ages was owned by the government, in that the landed aristocracy only managed, not owned outright, the property, at the pleasure of the king. If the king was displeased, the aristocrat in the feudal system not only lost the land that he was managing in trust for the king, but very often his head, as well. The serfs did not even own the roof over their heads.


In the sense that eminent domain vests power over all property in the government, then as now, yes, the king owns all property and could take it at his pleasure. But you could certainly own a cow or an ox; you could own an indentured servant, you could own personal belongings; you could own a house and tools. My simple point is just that private property does not equal capitalism, though of course it’s part of it. There are many instances of personal private property without capitalism

Now, we have rules in place so that the king cannot take property without just cause and compensation. Much different than in the middle ages. Under the feudal system that you mentioned, the serfs were all property of the king, to do with as he pleased. They did not own property in the way we do now. They may have kept a cow, but did not own it. That concept came later, after the Renaissance and Restoration.

Still waiting for your treatise on Taffey 3. No Freshmen this year?