1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87So you'd like to add 'wealthy' to the mix. There can be poor capitalists right?
I suppose it all bogs down in the definition of what constitutes work. Investments don't make themselves and to stay a wealthy capitalist one would have to do some research as to the best products to invest in.
Though compared to doing manual labour, you could also argue that Moore hardly 'works'
I don't think there's any reputable definition of capitalism that stipulates capitalists must not work, so there's no need to get bogged down in defining what work is, and then defining what 'best products' means, then defining what 'research' means means, trying to define when 'work' crosses the line and becomes research, then eventually we could get around to defining what 'define' means.
Originally posted by WajomaNo there are no poor capitalists. Only failed capitalists. 🙂
So you'd like to add 'wealthy' to the mix. There can be poor capitalists right?
I don't think there's any reputable definition of capitalism that stipulates capitalists must not work, so there's no need to get bogged down in defining what work is, and then defining what 'best products' means, then defining what 'research' means means, trying to define w ...[text shortened]... line and becomes research, then eventually we could get around to defining what 'define' means.
Originally posted by WajomaOf course capitalists can work as well as invest.
I asked for a reputable definition of capitalism that included the stipulation that capitalists do not work.
Can you do that. Because I think it might be 'off the top of your head again'. I don't want to be accused of 'psuedo intellect' so I'm asking.
Asking for some basis for your assertion that people who work, cannot be capitalists.
But the initial "proof" of Moore's capitalism was that he is very wealthy.
He earned that wealth through his work - not through capitalism.
To put it any simpler for you is beyond my patience. Try google.
Originally posted by kmax87Then I suspect that most of us on RHP do not "work" by your definition.
Though compared to doing manual labour, you could also argue that Moore hardly 'works'
Moore is either paid directly for his effort or sells the finished product. That
would fit into most people's definition of work.
Originally posted by wolfgang59We've clarified the work issue I think:
Of course capitalists can work as well as invest.
But the initial "proof" of Moore's capitalism was that he is very wealthy.
He earned that wealth through his work - not through capitalism.
To put it any simpler for you is beyond my patience. Try google.
Capitalists may work, capitalists may not work.
Non-capitalists may work, non-capitalists may not work.
Is this what you're saying? Why don't you just say what you mean.
But the initial "proof" of Moore's capitalism was that he is very wealthy.
That's not proof at all.
There are very poor capitalists, there are very wealthy capitalists
There are very poor non-capitalists, there are very wealthy non-capitalists.
You're struggling with this, can't you just define what a capitalist is, and provide some reputable source that backs that definition.
Really all you've told us is what doesn't define capitalism.
Originally posted by WajomaWhat?
We've clarified the work issue I think:
Capitalists may work, capitalists may not work.
Non-capitalists may work, non-capitalists may not work.
Is this what you're saying? Why don't you just say what you mean.
But the initial "proof" of Moore's capitalism was that he is very wealthy.
That's not proof at all.
There are very poor capit ...[text shortened]... at backs that definition.
Really all you've told us is what doesn't define capitalism.
Follow the conversation you dimwit.
Originally posted by Wajoma
We've clarified the work issue I think:
Capitalists may work, capitalists may not work.
Non-capitalists may work, non-capitalists may not work.
Is this what you're saying? Why don't you just say what you mean.
But the initial "proof" of Moore's capitalism was that he is very wealthy.
That's not proof at all.
There are very poor capit ...[text shortened]... at backs that definition.
Really all you've told us is what doesn't define capitalism.
There are very poor capitalists
No there aren't. You can't be a capitalist without capital.