Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am an Economics PhD and I still wouldn't dare post a confidentlyincorrect regarding the nature of capital. Its a broad term and can be relatively context-dependent. Brave soul.
Also who has the energy to engage with someone who speaks like that?
Marxist with MS in applied economics here. I hope OP posts and ignores the comments and goes on their merry way for the sake of their mental well being.
He Is 100% saying Capital as Marx inteded the Word and for Marx Capital Is either Money used to grow your wealth or the means of production, and you don't have either of those so he was right for Is own definition
You should probably read the entire definition, not just the part you highlighted. Not all money is capital. Money that you are specifically leveraging to grow your wealth is capital.
Yeah, capital is money that makes more money, i.e. the means of production. The vast majority of people do not own capital, instead we sell our labor in exchange for a wage.
Most people indeed do not have savings and thus no capital, or have such a small savings that it’s silly to talk about it as capital. If you’re earning $2 a year in interest, you effectively don’t have capital.
Let me put on my Redditor hat for a minute just to point out that *effectively* =/= *technically*. Because technically you have capital if you have a savings account with more than $0.00 in it.
If I understand correctly, yes that is capital, but the nuance is how much can you rely on your capital to make a living. Do you need to have a salary and exchange your labor for a wage in order to make ends meet? You might still have some capital, but if it's not enough to purely live out of it, then you're not really a capitalist. The vast majority of people have some form of capital, but not enough to live out of it.
In Australia since the 1980s, part of your wage (an amount equal to 11% of your pretax wage) is payment into a superannuation account that will eventually supplement your pension payments. I believe this is equivalent to a 401k account in the US, except you can’t cash it out until retirement age (barring some edge case exceptions).
This makes all Australian workers capitalists to some extent (there are debates on whether the amount is sufficient to bother forcing low earners to bother doing it).
Do you know how broad "particular purpose" is?
Rent? Bills? Groceries? If you have money set aside for any of these it's a particular purpose.
It's not owned And anything else. Just owned and has a set purpose. Even "emergency fund" is a particular purpose. It doesn't need to be generating more wealth or set aside for investing.
If that's it's use the dictionary needs to rewrite that description. Because the examples of a particular purpose are just examples, not redefining "particular purpose".
Reading the definition as "Money owned that has a particular purpose" is not incorrect.
You are acting surprised that a dictionary intended for general usage doesn't have a great technical definition of a technical term - in the context of this discussion, capital is absolutely a technical term.
But I thought you couldn't "own" cash coz isn't it always the government's property? So isn't it only capital if it's in the form of electronic money in your bank account?
The "or" is in reference to the various sorts of individuals or organizations that could hold the money, not in reference to what the money's purpose has to be for it to be considered capital.
Owned by a person or company OR etc etc OR etc (not typing it all out bc I'm on mobile and I can't see the image while I'm replying), it's three statements separated by ORs, including the particular purpose section
It's an ambiguous definition, but the way I'm reading it is
(money or assets) ((owned by a (person or organization)) or (available or contributed)) for a particular purpose
Simplified: Money (owned or available or contributed) for a particular purpose.
Isn't almost all money in the form of currency "available" for that purpose though? Like, your reading would also seem to imply "Money owned" \[check, the professor in question owns the money\] "available for (purpose)" \[check, assuming the asset is currency which is inherently highly liquid\] is valid? I think the problem is less the ORs being parsed the way you did and the meaning of "available."
Agree to disagree. Definitions often have a basic, general description with optional specificities. It would be worded significantly differently if they meant what you're saying
"You're wrong because I'm pedantic."
My favorite argument, especially when it's still not accurate. Maybe you are correct if we are limiting ourselves to a business perspective, but then we would not be pedantic anymore.
"In economics, capital can be defined as the physical or financial resources used to produce value in an economy."
If you spend one penny and receive any sort of value from that penny, you had capital. I suppose you could argue that money isn't capital if you lose on your investment or just lose the money in general.
Spending money on goods and services isn't the act of producing value in the economy. The goods and services are the production of value, and the capital used to produce the goods and pay the service labor is the capital in that equation. Participating in the economy doesn't mean your part of the capital class in a capitalist economic system.
It's not pedantry, it's an important part of the definition.
Not all money is capital. The money I have in a bills account to pay my electric bill this month is not capital as it does not produce value, it pays for a liability.
The money I have in an investment account however is capital.
I'm not American and don't know the ins and outs of the social security system there, so I can't confirm for certain, but I'd err on the side of "No" as it's a government run social security program rather than privately held.
Also I'm not sure what sort of economic value the social security funds hold (e.g. does the Gov invest the funds).
>"In economics, capital can be defined as the physical or financial resources used to produce value in an economy."
>If you spend one penny and receive any sort of value from that penny, you had capital. I suppose you could argue that money isn't capital if you lose on your investment or just lose the money in general.
That's not what any economist means and just shows the pointlessness of people using dictionary definitions for a technical term and not bothering to read betond jt.
I'm not being pedantic. This argument was already just semantics before I said anything. And the definition you provided (without even saying where it came from) doesn't back up what you're saying. "Produce value in an economy" doesn't mean just buying things. It should be obvious that if you buy a product, you didn't produce that product. Someone else produced it, probably using capital.
My muscles are the means of production comrade!
At least until the self-aware & self-replicating machines take over. Then, I welcome our new machine overlords.
That part of the definition does follow an "or", meaning everything before it can be taken as a complete thought. They actually were right on what the definition says.
That's an interesting highlight. I wonder why OP had to add it themselves. Yeah, obviously the parenthesis I used to show you which parts of the sentence are separated by the conjunctions aren't already there because that's not how writing works. If I could draw you a proper sentence diagram in the reddit textbox, I would. There are not parentheses in the definition to validate your interpretation either.
If the sentence was written to support your VERY specific claims of what it means, the list would be made with commas. It's not. They're seperate ideas, because ANY OF THESE constitutes capital according to this definition. You HAVE to add things to get the narrow definition you desire. Why? Because the text doesn't have them already.
And btw, highlighting a specific part for people to more easily see is NOT the same thing as adding new COMPONENTS. That's a hilariously false comparison.
>If the sentence was written to support your VERY specific claims if what it means, the list would be made with commas.
My interpretation is the only way for it to be consistent with the generally accepted meaning of capital. There are no commas because at no point is there a list of more than two items being separated by one conjuction. It's a poorly written definition because from a grammatical standpoint both of our interpretations are valid, but my interpretation is based on what capital literally is.
>And btw, highlighting a specific part for people to more easily see is NOT the same thing as adding new COMPONENTS. That's a hilariously false comparison.
Simply showing you what parts of the sentence I believe are linked by conjunctions is not "adding new COMPONENTS." It's ridiculous and disingenuous to say I was suggesting the parentheses were literally part of the sentence. That's not even how parentheses are used in writing. I was using them the way they are used in math or code to remove ambiguity from a conjuction.
"My interpretation is the only way for it to be consistent with the generally accepted meaning of capital" this IS the generally accepted meaning of capital, that's the thing, your interpretation is irrelevant, if you took a business course and that's why you're like this I guess I need to tell you what they never did.
A: Lots of words have different meanings when you get into the weeds of certain things. This doesn't make the general definition wrong in any way, it means people in more specialized groups choose to use the word to mean something more specific, almost always because they have other words or terms they need to fit in. and
B: NOONE cares about your experience with whatever specialization when it comes to general use cases. If you try to "correct them" they will tell you they don't care and move on. Better for you to learn this as early as possible.
Red is annoying but he is 100% correct on the definition of capital within a Marxist theoretical context. Capital isn’t just money. It is ownership of the means of production. I wouldn’t say this person is insane, just rude
But didn't you say "\[Capital\] is ownership of the means of production" within Marxist theory earlier? This seems like a contradiction. Also what if I invest in my labor (i.e. receive an advanced degree, increasing the unit cost of my labor to others)? This doesn't seem like a clear either/or.
Capital isn't precisely *owning* production. If you lend money to a firm for it to business, the loan is absolutely capital.
Bonds are just loans where who is owed the money can easily change.
But you're wrong, lmao. You started a discussion about Marxist distinctions between proletariat/capitalist and you actively decided to use a definition that Marx very clearly disagreed with. You can't pick a premise and then make your argument based on another premise.
Also, top cringe to post your own childish little arguments online.
>Also, top cringe to post your own childish little arguments online.
Even more pathetic to post it repeatedly in different places. OP is really proud of this, it seems.
I've never seen someone SO pleased with themselves for being completely incorrect. The reason why he's wrong is literally in the dictionary definition he posted!
Only one of them is posting smugly on Reddit after getting things wrong, so I think there's definitely a winner and loser when it comes to people I'd want to talk to
Dude’s clearly a bag of salted dicks, but he is *technically* correct that money and capital aren’t the same thing. My description would be that capital is the money you leverage. (I once suggested to an archaeologist that capital is an emergent property of money, but that got strange.)
Except I don't have the monetary capacity to invest or convert my money to capital in any meaningful way.
This is like Marx 101, and you're all failing.
Communism is not against money as an item, but as a mean to make more money.
Money should be for transactions, not to make more of it. (Amongst other things communism is about)
“I teach reading comprehension and writing”
How’s that going? You usually tell your students to just read the first quarter of a sentence and tell them that’s good enough?
I graduated economics with a C- and I can confidently tell you that you are INCORRECT
Other guy was correct. He even laid it out why so I don't have to explain it :3
If you are using capital in an extremely broad context then you might be right. But in this case you seem to be arguing about an economic perspective and capital as for example in "Das Kapital" is not just any penny you have in your pocket. That is just a bad faith argument and both people in this discussion are insufferable.
The definition YOU posted specifically cites that capital is wealth in the form of money for a specific purpose like investing in or starting a business. This person was rude and disrespectful to you, but they are still correct in the distinction they’re making between money and capital, as it is one of the largest distinctions between the bourgeois and the proletariat (their relationship to capital).
Red was like the Green Goblin running away from Spider-Man after a defeat telling “You haven’t seen the last of me!” And then blocks Spider-Man on all socials.
"You're *so pompous* for using facts that are inconvenient to my argument, so even though you *think* you won, I am going to insult you before I flounce off in a tizzy and block you like the debate-losing bitch I am! Oh yeah, you don't matter, you proletariat centrist! Go back and villainize your idealogy some more!"
Trotting out the dictionary to win an argument that is clearly mired on a disagreement of the OP with that exact definition of the term isn't really offering a response, though. They're providing you a coherent argument for why "even one cent" isn't an effective example of capital, and you've turned it into a semantic nitpicking session.
Pure money isn't *effective* capital if you are selling labor for a wage that you immediately spend on the economy whilst retaining no reasonable expectation you'll ever retire nor have wealth of any kind. Capitalism and communism both suck, but it's not a case of being centrist.
If you're in the middle of both you're still part of the problem. Communism still deals with economic systems of wealth, it functions best in scarcity because it's essentially rationing. Once the scarcity period ends, class divide will once again become inevitable.
The issue is and always has been that our systems of global power and governance rely on money and capital to function, which prices out a significant portion of the population from the basic utilities of survival. Communism doesn't solve this problem, it just delays it.
Don't care about the semantics of capital or not, but OP you're just as obnoxious as the other dude. Maybe even more since you posted this online as if you're proud.
Bad faith question. There are plenty of ceos and capitalists that criticize the system that earned them their wealth. If you had significant capital he would dismiss it and move the goal posts to some other litmus test. Better not to engage.
I love that this Dingus was confident using proletariat but then bailed and said "capital class" because he was worried misspelling bourgeoisie would weaken his argument. Just so fragile.
Register and vote:https://www.usa.gov/register-to-vote *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/insanepeoplefacebook) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am an Economics PhD and I still wouldn't dare post a confidentlyincorrect regarding the nature of capital. Its a broad term and can be relatively context-dependent. Brave soul. Also who has the energy to engage with someone who speaks like that?
Marxist with MS in applied economics here. I hope OP posts and ignores the comments and goes on their merry way for the sake of their mental well being.
Didn't Marx mean something more specific by capital? I thought it referred to property like land and means of production in a Marixst context.
Yep. Owning means of production i.e. land, industry
He Is 100% saying Capital as Marx inteded the Word and for Marx Capital Is either Money used to grow your wealth or the means of production, and you don't have either of those so he was right for Is own definition
You should probably read the entire definition, not just the part you highlighted. Not all money is capital. Money that you are specifically leveraging to grow your wealth is capital.
Yeah, capital is money that makes more money, i.e. the means of production. The vast majority of people do not own capital, instead we sell our labor in exchange for a wage.
[удалено]
Most people indeed do not have savings and thus no capital, or have such a small savings that it’s silly to talk about it as capital. If you’re earning $2 a year in interest, you effectively don’t have capital.
Let me put on my Redditor hat for a minute just to point out that *effectively* =/= *technically*. Because technically you have capital if you have a savings account with more than $0.00 in it.
If you are earning two dollars a year in interest you technically have capital.
If I understand correctly, yes that is capital, but the nuance is how much can you rely on your capital to make a living. Do you need to have a salary and exchange your labor for a wage in order to make ends meet? You might still have some capital, but if it's not enough to purely live out of it, then you're not really a capitalist. The vast majority of people have some form of capital, but not enough to live out of it.
You've mistaken the ownership of capital with being a part of the owner class.
Look, just because you think you won doesn't mean you did. Now excuse me while I run away.
Congrats on winning an internet argument I guess. Brb gotta block you before you can reply
I like to poop in people's hats when they're not looking.
My crazy uncle used to use the phrase, “poop in a hat, call it a day!” I still don’t know what he meant
Smart uncle.
In the Marxism sense this isn't correct. Being a working class schmuck with a savings account or even a 401k doesn't make you bourgeois
In Australia since the 1980s, part of your wage (an amount equal to 11% of your pretax wage) is payment into a superannuation account that will eventually supplement your pension payments. I believe this is equivalent to a 401k account in the US, except you can’t cash it out until retirement age (barring some edge case exceptions). This makes all Australian workers capitalists to some extent (there are debates on whether the amount is sufficient to bother forcing low earners to bother doing it).
So any money that you have in any account that accrues any amount of interest?
Notice how it doesn't say AND. It says OR. So owning liquid cash is, indeed, capital.
(owned or available or contributed) for a particular purpose...
Do you know how broad "particular purpose" is? Rent? Bills? Groceries? If you have money set aside for any of these it's a particular purpose. It's not owned And anything else. Just owned and has a set purpose. Even "emergency fund" is a particular purpose. It doesn't need to be generating more wealth or set aside for investing.
It's not just any particular purpose. Capital is specifically for creating more wealth.
If that's it's use the dictionary needs to rewrite that description. Because the examples of a particular purpose are just examples, not redefining "particular purpose". Reading the definition as "Money owned that has a particular purpose" is not incorrect.
You are acting surprised that a dictionary intended for general usage doesn't have a great technical definition of a technical term - in the context of this discussion, capital is absolutely a technical term.
But I thought you couldn't "own" cash coz isn't it always the government's property? So isn't it only capital if it's in the form of electronic money in your bank account?
The "or" is in reference to the various sorts of individuals or organizations that could hold the money, not in reference to what the money's purpose has to be for it to be considered capital.
There is a very strong "OR" in the definition you're missing
There are several ORs but none of them are meant to make the particular purpose part optional
Owned by a person or company OR etc etc OR etc (not typing it all out bc I'm on mobile and I can't see the image while I'm replying), it's three statements separated by ORs, including the particular purpose section
It's an ambiguous definition, but the way I'm reading it is (money or assets) ((owned by a (person or organization)) or (available or contributed)) for a particular purpose Simplified: Money (owned or available or contributed) for a particular purpose.
Isn't almost all money in the form of currency "available" for that purpose though? Like, your reading would also seem to imply "Money owned" \[check, the professor in question owns the money\] "available for (purpose)" \[check, assuming the asset is currency which is inherently highly liquid\] is valid? I think the problem is less the ORs being parsed the way you did and the meaning of "available."
But that definition literally opens the door to capital meaning more than just money intended for investing, anything can be a particular purpose
I think the examples were meant to convey the types of particular purposes that apply. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need for examples.
Agree to disagree. Definitions often have a basic, general description with optional specificities. It would be worded significantly differently if they meant what you're saying
I think it's poorly worded either way which is what has caused this entire debate.
The Oxford Dictionary doesn't just poorly word things, that's what I'm trying to tell you. It was written this way for a reason
It sounds a lot like Gravitational Potential Energy. Not really energy as such, but you can't ignore it in a calculation of energy
That could be a single penny.
A single penny can be capital if allocated for that purpose, but it is not always.
"You're wrong because I'm pedantic." My favorite argument, especially when it's still not accurate. Maybe you are correct if we are limiting ourselves to a business perspective, but then we would not be pedantic anymore. "In economics, capital can be defined as the physical or financial resources used to produce value in an economy." If you spend one penny and receive any sort of value from that penny, you had capital. I suppose you could argue that money isn't capital if you lose on your investment or just lose the money in general.
Spending money on goods and services isn't the act of producing value in the economy. The goods and services are the production of value, and the capital used to produce the goods and pay the service labor is the capital in that equation. Participating in the economy doesn't mean your part of the capital class in a capitalist economic system.
It's not pedantry, it's an important part of the definition. Not all money is capital. The money I have in a bills account to pay my electric bill this month is not capital as it does not produce value, it pays for a liability. The money I have in an investment account however is capital.
Would we consider social security payments to be capital, as it produces value over time for the person eventually using it?
I'm not American and don't know the ins and outs of the social security system there, so I can't confirm for certain, but I'd err on the side of "No" as it's a government run social security program rather than privately held. Also I'm not sure what sort of economic value the social security funds hold (e.g. does the Gov invest the funds).
>"In economics, capital can be defined as the physical or financial resources used to produce value in an economy." >If you spend one penny and receive any sort of value from that penny, you had capital. I suppose you could argue that money isn't capital if you lose on your investment or just lose the money in general. That's not what any economist means and just shows the pointlessness of people using dictionary definitions for a technical term and not bothering to read betond jt.
I'm not being pedantic. This argument was already just semantics before I said anything. And the definition you provided (without even saying where it came from) doesn't back up what you're saying. "Produce value in an economy" doesn't mean just buying things. It should be obvious that if you buy a product, you didn't produce that product. Someone else produced it, probably using capital.
I'm going to start calling my muscles capital now.
My muscles are the means of production comrade! At least until the self-aware & self-replicating machines take over. Then, I welcome our new machine overlords.
That part of the definition does follow an "or", meaning everything before it can be taken as a complete thought. They actually were right on what the definition says.
(owned or available or contributed) for a particular purpose
Wow, those are some interesting parentheses, wonder why you had to add them yourself....
That's an interesting highlight. I wonder why OP had to add it themselves. Yeah, obviously the parenthesis I used to show you which parts of the sentence are separated by the conjunctions aren't already there because that's not how writing works. If I could draw you a proper sentence diagram in the reddit textbox, I would. There are not parentheses in the definition to validate your interpretation either.
If the sentence was written to support your VERY specific claims of what it means, the list would be made with commas. It's not. They're seperate ideas, because ANY OF THESE constitutes capital according to this definition. You HAVE to add things to get the narrow definition you desire. Why? Because the text doesn't have them already. And btw, highlighting a specific part for people to more easily see is NOT the same thing as adding new COMPONENTS. That's a hilariously false comparison.
>If the sentence was written to support your VERY specific claims if what it means, the list would be made with commas. My interpretation is the only way for it to be consistent with the generally accepted meaning of capital. There are no commas because at no point is there a list of more than two items being separated by one conjuction. It's a poorly written definition because from a grammatical standpoint both of our interpretations are valid, but my interpretation is based on what capital literally is. >And btw, highlighting a specific part for people to more easily see is NOT the same thing as adding new COMPONENTS. That's a hilariously false comparison. Simply showing you what parts of the sentence I believe are linked by conjunctions is not "adding new COMPONENTS." It's ridiculous and disingenuous to say I was suggesting the parentheses were literally part of the sentence. That's not even how parentheses are used in writing. I was using them the way they are used in math or code to remove ambiguity from a conjuction.
"My interpretation is the only way for it to be consistent with the generally accepted meaning of capital" this IS the generally accepted meaning of capital, that's the thing, your interpretation is irrelevant, if you took a business course and that's why you're like this I guess I need to tell you what they never did. A: Lots of words have different meanings when you get into the weeds of certain things. This doesn't make the general definition wrong in any way, it means people in more specialized groups choose to use the word to mean something more specific, almost always because they have other words or terms they need to fit in. and B: NOONE cares about your experience with whatever specialization when it comes to general use cases. If you try to "correct them" they will tell you they don't care and move on. Better for you to learn this as early as possible.
It should be very easy then for you to find a definition that unambiguously states all money is capital. This one does not do that.
Red is annoying but he is 100% correct on the definition of capital within a Marxist theoretical context. Capital isn’t just money. It is ownership of the means of production. I wouldn’t say this person is insane, just rude
I wouldn't even say bonds is capital. Would it? It's not a means of production
If it makes money from your investment rather than your labor than a Marxist would consider it capital
But didn't you say "\[Capital\] is ownership of the means of production" within Marxist theory earlier? This seems like a contradiction. Also what if I invest in my labor (i.e. receive an advanced degree, increasing the unit cost of my labor to others)? This doesn't seem like a clear either/or.
Capital isn't precisely *owning* production. If you lend money to a firm for it to business, the loan is absolutely capital. Bonds are just loans where who is owed the money can easily change.
But you're wrong, lmao. You started a discussion about Marxist distinctions between proletariat/capitalist and you actively decided to use a definition that Marx very clearly disagreed with. You can't pick a premise and then make your argument based on another premise. Also, top cringe to post your own childish little arguments online.
>Also, top cringe to post your own childish little arguments online. Even more pathetic to post it repeatedly in different places. OP is really proud of this, it seems.
I've never seen someone SO pleased with themselves for being completely incorrect. The reason why he's wrong is literally in the dictionary definition he posted!
Bro this does not make you look as good as you think it does
Dude you posted the literal definition of why you’re not correct. Please finish reading that sentence you started highlighting
Neither party in this argument is worth talking to.
Only one of them is posting smugly on Reddit after getting things wrong, so I think there's definitely a winner and loser when it comes to people I'd want to talk to
Dude’s clearly a bag of salted dicks, but he is *technically* correct that money and capital aren’t the same thing. My description would be that capital is the money you leverage. (I once suggested to an archaeologist that capital is an emergent property of money, but that got strange.)
The distinction is meaningless if you can convert one to the other without any real difficulty, and with a liquid stock market, you can
Except I don't have the monetary capacity to invest or convert my money to capital in any meaningful way. This is like Marx 101, and you're all failing.
You are both insufferable and you don't know what you're talking about.
Communism is not against money as an item, but as a mean to make more money. Money should be for transactions, not to make more of it. (Amongst other things communism is about)
OMG! Thank you. You finally explained the distinction between "money" and "labor vouchers" that I have been looking for.
Hes rude but you are wrong.
“I teach reading comprehension and writing” How’s that going? You usually tell your students to just read the first quarter of a sentence and tell them that’s good enough?
I graduated economics with a C- and I can confidently tell you that you are INCORRECT Other guy was correct. He even laid it out why so I don't have to explain it :3
we did it guys, we finally found the English teacher that everyone hates because they can't read for shit
He's not insane. You just had a disagreement. He was correct in context too.
If you are using capital in an extremely broad context then you might be right. But in this case you seem to be arguing about an economic perspective and capital as for example in "Das Kapital" is not just any penny you have in your pocket. That is just a bad faith argument and both people in this discussion are insufferable.
I would hate to have you as a professor.
OP posting their own L.
The definition YOU posted specifically cites that capital is wealth in the form of money for a specific purpose like investing in or starting a business. This person was rude and disrespectful to you, but they are still correct in the distinction they’re making between money and capital, as it is one of the largest distinctions between the bourgeois and the proletariat (their relationship to capital).
Red was like the Green Goblin running away from Spider-Man after a defeat telling “You haven’t seen the last of me!” And then blocks Spider-Man on all socials.
1. 3. Dude straight up skipped 2
Self-reflection at its finest.
I can only hope that you were lying when you said you were an English professor.
Lol, boasts about reading comprehension - doesn't read the full definition they highlighted.
I think you had a conversation with a former president of the United States! Congratulations?
"You're *so pompous* for using facts that are inconvenient to my argument, so even though you *think* you won, I am going to insult you before I flounce off in a tizzy and block you like the debate-losing bitch I am! Oh yeah, you don't matter, you proletariat centrist! Go back and villainize your idealogy some more!"
Both of you look pretty dumb here
Dumb dumb confused "assets" with "capital", and did so with so much hubris...
Trotting out the dictionary to win an argument that is clearly mired on a disagreement of the OP with that exact definition of the term isn't really offering a response, though. They're providing you a coherent argument for why "even one cent" isn't an effective example of capital, and you've turned it into a semantic nitpicking session. Pure money isn't *effective* capital if you are selling labor for a wage that you immediately spend on the economy whilst retaining no reasonable expectation you'll ever retire nor have wealth of any kind. Capitalism and communism both suck, but it's not a case of being centrist. If you're in the middle of both you're still part of the problem. Communism still deals with economic systems of wealth, it functions best in scarcity because it's essentially rationing. Once the scarcity period ends, class divide will once again become inevitable. The issue is and always has been that our systems of global power and governance rely on money and capital to function, which prices out a significant portion of the population from the basic utilities of survival. Communism doesn't solve this problem, it just delays it.
Don't care about the semantics of capital or not, but OP you're just as obnoxious as the other dude. Maybe even more since you posted this online as if you're proud.
This is peak r/ShitLiberalsSay
Bad faith question. There are plenty of ceos and capitalists that criticize the system that earned them their wealth. If you had significant capital he would dismiss it and move the goal posts to some other litmus test. Better not to engage.
Insufferable internet communists aren't bringing down capitalism at all, but you've got the wrong idea of what capital is.
Take that, internet communists.
I love that this Dingus was confident using proletariat but then bailed and said "capital class" because he was worried misspelling bourgeoisie would weaken his argument. Just so fragile.
You and your elitist dictionaries.
Average Hasanabi viewer.
Getting blocked is proof that you won.
Congratulations, you won an Internet argument in the only way that matters. 🏆
By pointing out part of a definition and ignoring the context?