Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    19 Aug '14 11:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    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'
    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 when 'work' crosses the line and becomes research, then eventually we could get around to defining what 'define' means.
  2. Subscriber kmax87
    Land of Free
    19 Aug '14 11:59
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    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.
    No there are no poor capitalists. Only failed capitalists. 🙂
  3. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    19 Aug '14 21:59
    Originally posted by Wajoma
    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.
    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.
  4. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    19 Aug '14 22:03
    Originally posted by kmax87

    Though compared to doing manual labour, you could also argue that Moore hardly 'works'
    Then I suspect that most of us on RHP do not "work" by your definition.

    Moore is either paid directly for his effort or sells the finished product. That
    would fit into most people's definition of work.
  5. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Aug '14 00:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    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.
    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 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.
  6. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    20 Aug '14 02:34
    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.
    What?
    Follow the conversation you dimwit.
  7. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    20 Aug '14 02:50
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    What?
    Follow the conversation you dimwit.
    I bow before your superior wisdom, I am indeed a dimwit, can you answer the question sir.
  8. 20 Aug '14 11:33
    What's a "capitalist"?
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Just another day
    21 Aug '14 22:17
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    What's a "capitalist"?
    A person who makes money (profits) from investments, constrasted with a worker, who makes money (wages) from work.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Just another day
    21 Aug '14 22:32
    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.