CPAPtalk.com

VVV, it seems to me that you are redefining the phrase "capital investment" into an altruistic term of art.

This is not a new or novel definition that VVV is expressing. It is well accepted among economists especially those of us who follow the Austrian school of economics.

Start out reading about Adam Smith's baker to get an understanding. Then Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose. Then you can easily find all the columns of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams.

Those four sources will give you a perfect understanding of what VVV is talking about and they will give you an understanding of how man functions best for his own benefit and for the benefit of others (social benefit as it is called in this thread).

If you don't read and understand (it's easy to understand) those four sources you will have big problems understanding it from a forum. From your posts I think you would enjoy the reading.

NachtWürger wrote: Start out reading about Adam Smith's baker to get an understanding. Then Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose. Then you can easily find all the columns of Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams.

Perfect!

My dad told me about the baker when I was 12. On my 13th birthday he game me a copy of Free to Choose. After I read that he introduced me to the columns of Sowell and Williams and later I read a couple of their books.

Of course I am sure you have read Hayek.

As my dad says these things aren't taught in government schools. They are foreign to the teachers and administrators who are truly slaves of the government. This needs to change. People need to be exposed to these ideas throughout middle school and high school.

These ideas have affected my approach to my business in a big and very good way. It makes it very clear that I must provide something to my customer that is of significant value to him and that he will appreciate. Who can argue that this is not of social benefit!

NachtWürger wrote: big problems understanding it

Yes. In much the same way that many fellow philosophers of economics/business/ethics/investment have trouble "understanding" it, or agreeing with such statements, at times, I would add.

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/seminarpapers/19-05-03-SPA.pdf

Hi NachtWürger!

NachtWürger wrote:Start out reading about Adam Smith's baker to get an understanding. Then Milton and Rose Friedman's Free to Choose.

Thanks, but I read (and forgotten) those (and many other) economics books years ago, and don't have the time to re-read them, much as I like to.

How about this, can you tell me who does the best job of arguing against their school of thought, and summarize (or provide links to) what that opposition posits?

I find that reading the best case against something allows me a quick (and more balanced) overview of a subject.

.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
.

NachtWürger, just curious, does your name mean "night strangler"?

If so, why such a dark name?

If you don't mind my asking.

roc

.

rocklin wrote:NachtWürger, just curious, does your name mean "night strangler"?

If so, why such a dark name?

Sounds like a great name for someone who is obstructing all night!

.

SleepingUgly wrote:
Sounds like a great name for someone who is obstructing all night!

(rimshot)

Geez, I walked right into that one . . .



.

VVV wrote: BTW, I thought that was a dirty and disingenuous attempt to besmirch market economies by comparing them to a heroin pusher. But I will be gentleman enough to fully debate that case if you so care to.

Arguing with you has pretty much identical nuances of arguing with Rooster. And one of those nuances is convenient distortion of scope in your sociopolitical arguments. Take the above ad hominem attack as an example...

There is no comparison of a heroin pusher to market economies in this thread. The heroin pusher is of microeconomic scope while market economies are macroeconomic. However, I did compare the capital-investment dynamic of a particular black market to that same dynamic in government sanctioned markets. The government sanctioned markets and the black markets both require capitalistic investment----which you said must maintain social benefit as its primary objective.

VVV wrote: BTW, I thought that was a dirty and disingenuous attempt to besmirch market economies by comparing them to a heroin pusher. But I will be gentleman enough to fully debate that case if you so care to.

There was nothing dirty or disingenuous in what I presented. Nor was there anything dirty or disingenuous in how I presented it. If I had employed several screen names in this thread to advance my sociopolitical views---parading as a consensus crowd---now THAT would have been disingenuous and dirty.