Is it time to get rid of Wall Street?
Though the French Revolution in 1789 is ancient history its socialistic legacy continues. While some forms of modern Socialism are more lethal than others they all derive from the Marxist definition of capital and some fool's attempt to apply it in the real world.
"Rage and frenzy will pull down more in half an hour than prudence, deliberation, and foresight can build up in a hundred years." - Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
Ever wonder why the latest Star Wars movies suck?
No risk means no reward.
Capitalism mediates risk in productive ways. Instead of weak vs strong. Young vs old. Capitalism transforms perceived imbalances into assets of perspective through which production is based on voluntary creative collaboration. Community is an early enterprise in which old and young, weak and strong helped each other through application of their diverse contributions.
I'd love to hear more discussion of problems with the Marxian definition of capital versus the Pioneer definition of capital and how Wallstreet ruins capitalism by promoting the former. First, let me say that you can't change minds by convincing supporters that Socialism is bad. Believe me I've tried. 9 times out of 10 what they're calling Socialism is actually collaborative Capitalism which we call Enterprise and they are simply misled by vocabulary and Corporatism.
Socialist ring leaders are ultimately cowards when faced with any opposition at all. If more part timers could see them for what they really are maybe they'd break free of the spell sooner.
Unfortunately, Marxism was designed by a genius to completely re-write the value appraisal muscles of the mind. It attracts a certain type of well meaning youngster who then "grows" through the belief that a single solution or provider can solve all problems. It's almost a religion. Instead you must give them new tools to work with.
Trading Marxist vs Pioneering Capitalist Definition of Money
"In Marxian economics, capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a profit. For Marx, capital only exists within the process of the economic circuit (represented by M-C-M') - it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself, and for Marx it formed the basis of the economic system of capitalism."
To a Capitalist "capital consists of assets that can enhance one's power to perform economically useful work. For example, a stone or an arrow is capital for a hunter-gatherer who can use it as a hunting instrument; similarly, roads are capital for inhabitants of a city." - Wiki Capitalism Series, Economics
The critical point of corruption for a Marxist or Corporatist(one of the most obvious modern examples of operating collectivists masquerading as capitalist) which leads them down the road toward opportunism and exploitation is their definition of capital. They employ a reductive definition unlike the pioneering Capitalists who define Capital more constructively if broadly. If you can get a Marxist to accept the proper capitalist definition of Capital then the rest falls into place in natural order just as their mistaken definition has led them astray.
Then you'll be able to illustrate clearly for them the difference between capital and commodity. They'll come to understand capitalizing exchange and how it compares to market trade. You can show them a world full of growth and prosperity rather than consumption and decay. And if they follow your advice just as Mr. Duckworth suggests... they'll retire with money in the bank and so will you.
Kendrick Lamar (You Only Live Once)
Take no chances (no chances)
Stop freelancin' (right now)
Invest in your future,
Don't dilute your finances (uh huh)
401K, make sure it's low risk
Then get some real estate (how much?)
4.2% Thirty year mortgage,
That's important, that's a great deal
And if you can't afford it,
Don't forge it on your last bill
Renting is for suckers right now
A dependable savings,
And you'll retire with money in your account.
Gambling and monopolies are socialistic shortcuts for those desperate to avoid meritorious production. Capitalism is competition of ideas, not competition of producers. There can never be too many authors, musicians, inventors, and so on. The difference in outcome with Exchange (bartering) vs Trade (marketeering) is significant and don't let the financial industry creatures convince you otherwise. Trade has incredible value when not abused, but it's not a replacement for direct capitalization. It's an enhancement and only compounds value already produced. To mistake this leads to one's inevitable doom.
The role of money is as miniaturized trading post backed by a country's capital influence. As all commodities are just representing capital value of more substantial effect.
The Chicken or Egg Paradox
Where does value come from? Exchange as in production through collaborative enterprise or trade as in marketeering through opportunity management?
A subtle but critical difference. One simply requires "non-specific" interactions without any broader "market" beyond nature itself. The other requires an artificial, regulated social system with relative value based on broad measurements far beyond the moment. Capitalism is bartering; direct exchange of good or services to maximum profit in the moment and then building on that over successive cycles. Marketeering is usually conducted with an intermediary commodity such as a currency and is therefor vulnerable to external manipulation and losses having nothing to do with the trade at hand.
Marxists are fond of fictional terms like "Late-Stage Capitalism" to feed impressions of inevitable collapse.
Profit is capital gains... productive exchange; not collecting commodity. Cultivation of new wealth. Production not trade. Wall street ISN'T capitalism. It's corporate socialization of market accountability through investor and advertiser subsidization. Be a pioneer, not a marketeer. If you think capital is money then you're a Marxist by definition. Look it up. If you think capital is anything which can enhance a private operator's influence in an economy then and only then are you a true Capitalist.
Here's a classic Marxist fallacy:
"You can't profit off of anything without trading with someone for it. And Wall Street is about production, about allocating capital to where it can be used most productively."
Does anyone really believe that's how Wall Street works anymore if it ever really did?
The government generally can only secure individual rights including property rights, but when Wallstreet, which should have remained a private exchange finds itself under tons of anti-capitalist regulations... the government can use their influence through regulatory powers to control money, partnerships, and interest rates... perhaps the most important variable in a collectivized market. This is a severe vulnerability of Marketeering.
Now that you know the proper definitions it should be clear why this was a terrible and damaging conclusion. Instead understand that Capitalism is the production of goods and services. Trade and resource extraction are higher level additions to Capitalism called Marketeering. Capitalists are pioneers. They produce new wealth directly. At best Marketeers produce indirectly and usually not at all.
Money is just a miniaturized trading post. A utility of convenience. Those who mistake it for profit are doomed to a life of opportunism and exploitation while real Capitalists are writing new books, inventing new machines, and discovering and producing new value in this extraordinary world we find ourselves in. The only capital value any money has in the absence of the country backing it is as fuel in your wood stove to keep you warm when your country collapses. Ask the Soviets.
Sadly, it's not as easy as you might think educating a Socialist. They are absolutely convinced of their definition. It doesn't matter how little return it gets them or how much you explain the collectivist nature of secondary economic activity. Like publicly trading a company as if it's a product in itself. Treating a publicly traded company as you would a private company with shared ownership is the same error as treating money as capital. It will lead to an erosion of accountability to the customer as the investors and advertisers socialize the interest of the operators toward "market value" rather than sales.
In a proper Capitalist economy a business's "value" should be judged by its production potential, its sales, and its capital assets. A stock is not the problem. More than one entity owning the stock isn't wonderful but it's also not a serious problem. But the moment stock is traded openly on an exchange... the end is near.
That company will increasingly look to its trade value as if its the product they produce. This may sound great at first, but we've all seen where it leads. Corporatism, greed, disassociation from the anthropic purpose of producing goods and services which make the world a better place. To a Marxist the world is a set value and we are eating away at that value like a worm eats an apple as though no new apples will ever grow.
If you think you need trade to go fishing then you will starve if ever caught in nature. I, however, will use my capacity to build a shelter from the opportunity of the natural supplies around me. I will trap and fish having not bought the trap but having made it, not having bought a fishing rod or tackle but instead making it and capitalizing on the opportunity to apply my capacity to a fish source in the river.
Pioneers built entire countries seeing other people a handful of times a year. If you want to say trade is necessary for capitalization you are simply wrong and are applying the Marxist definition of "capitalization". If you instead use the word "exchange" and expand your partners to include nature itself then you are getting much closer to the practical reality.
In reality, the world is compounding. Every day new ideas which have never existed before influence the economy in unpredictable ways. New music, new books, new inventions, new goods and services which help people develop their own capital which in turn adds greater value to the world. So long as new capital is being produced the world is getting bigger not smaller as the Marxists mistakenly believe. The world is getting darker every day to them and brighter for us.
Yet it doesn't have to be like this. They can embrace the more practical path. Though, given the socialist nature of the corporate financial world, it isn't easy. Every bank, every stock broker has a selfish interest in misleading the general public toward a "financial" definition of capital. I call this a bait and switch because by "financial" they really mean Marxist. Marketeers don't make new capital, they only make more money by converting capital (generally other people's) into commodity and then taking a piece of the commodity conversion. Similar, but not quite the same as when the tax man takes a piece of your production.
Even a government bailout, so long as that bailout comes from taxes generated by capital production, is perfectly fine and well within the purview of Enterprise just as taxation of a capitalist engine is generally.
The key difference is the taxes are paid after production from actual profit as defined as capital production, rather than commodity conversion in order to feed off the waste. Where traders buy low and sell high creating the illusion of capital gains. This is really just a game of hot potato where someone always gets burned and the idea is to make sure it isn't you. Reductive.
It doesn't add any value to the whole but instead extracts value from other producers by promoting exploitation through opportunistic practices. A Capitalist looks at a failing business owned by someone else and is sad. They see a diminishing service or product that might have been valuable to them some day. Every painter can learn something from another painter. Every author can be inspired by another author. The more authors, the more opportunity. This is true market growth. More producers... not more money... not more territory to promote the brand.
The Marxist sees every other business as a threat which is why Socialism always leads to Communism or Fascism where a single provider solution (a non-solution really) can be forced upon everybody. They see more than one producer of a good or service as a threat to the predictability of manufacturing the commodity conversion because they've rigged their economy to be based almost entirely on resource extraction and regulated trade. Prices are set from the top down. New books stop getting written or the ones that are become increasingly less impressive and compromised toward the central agenda. This applies to all products and services in such a system.
They mean well... they've just been sold a lot of nonsense by Wallstreet and the financial sector(which is far more socialist these days than capitalist). More loyal to investors and advertisers rather than customers which is why socialists are so obsessed with controlling the means of production as they see it... of course they end up destroying the machine they take over. At first just interfering with private production. Then "canceling" the producer in hopes of making room for one of their own. Which is ironic because they hate Wallstreet for the very same outcomes they produce themselves. The corporate opportunity bot taking over the dreams of real people to make a fast buck. Too bad they smear all Capitalism with their collectivist nonsense.
Socialism is an incomplete organization mistaking itself for an enterprising organism. Like all viruses it cannot reproduce on its own and must infect a living body.
A Capitalist operation should be loyal first and foremost to production itself because that is the purpose of its existence. Any other purpose is a self-interest which must be judged on its own merits. Secondly to the Owners (not stock holders, but the actual controlling interests) those who have the majority, or the decision making power. Thirdly to the Customers of the good or service. Fourthly to the Advertisers and then dead last... the subsidizers ie. public investors and money lenders/gifters. In other words the exact opposite order of priority recommended by the professional financial class.
Now you think about why they would mislead you... think about it... there ya go... it's becoming clear now... because they don't exist to serve you the way a true capitalist does. A singer wants you to listen to their song. An author wants you reading their book. Corporatists only want you buying a copy of the book. They see no value to reading it. They don't count the capital gains of knowledge or skills or ideas or the real works we conduct in our lives. They exist only to serve themselves as they are trapped in a reductive Marxist dynamic where exploitation is the only way to survive and a good idea is measured by its risk of disrupting the long game they're taught in school to play on the rest of us.