undergroundoverground

If you consider the price of equipment, food, training, transport etc. it sounds like a bargain to me.

I mean, the price of an American soldier.

You know what it'll be yet?

Yes, they'll be a wage slave.

Sex education was a muttered warning about the school janitor

As you clearly read none of it, I only had to read the first part, as that disproved your nonsense straight away which can be seen by your own words and your own link.

I don't need to do better than wiki. You haven't disproven them. You just declared them to be shit, thinking your arrogance alone can refute what it says. You university should've taught you to actually quote specific parts of articles and not just link their entirety, declaring them to agree with you despite it disproving you within the first couple of sentences.

The edu link disproved you, instantly. So, that's literally exactly what happened. Its not my fault you made a clown out of yourself by proving yourself wrong. I wish you hadn't done it too. Its taken the sport out of it.

You literally think you know better than wiki, thinking you know better and confidently claimed so, despite misusing basic terminology around the subject. You commnet is nothing other than a lack of self awareness, drawing in irony.

You:

Which is when Adam Smith starts ranting about Mercantilism and he and David Hume are really cooking up Capitalism

Also you, the link you sent

Adam Smith is often identified as the father of modern capitalism. While accurate to some extent, this description is both overly simplistic and dangerously misleading.

I'm embarrassed for you.

Nobody likes a confident ass much less one who’s just so wrong.

Exactly, take your own advice and fuck off and get your money back from that university.

You should get your money back.

He critiqued the system he was in. That economic system hasn't changed until now. I don't even know what to say to your rebuttal being that he didn't coin the phrase. That was just sad to read.

Take it up with the universities you disagree with, as you seem to think you know better than them.

Its not just Wikipedia and you have shown yourself to know less than half of whats needed to attempt to correct them on this subject.

You just don't like the origin of capitalism and that's not the same as virtually all the universities and wiki being wrong and you being right, despite misusing basic terminology around the subject.

Also, no, even if it was just one kind of stock, a dedicated exchange wouldn't be needed, if only one joint stock company existed. So, the idea that the creation of the first stock exchange happened at the same time as the whole idea is being birthed is just bizzare. The Dutch east India company was made in 1602 in which was the invention of share capital, hence that being when capitalism was starting.

Also also the stock exchange you mentioned existed before 1623, as there are bonds traded at that exchange recorded then. So, you've disagreed with yourself there.

Thats why we go with wiki and no just vibes. They should've taught you that at that college you went to.

You "it can't be capitalism, as a the markets weren't free enough to be glorious free trade"

Me "Free trade has never existed and could never exist "

Also you "The thing about ideologies is they don’t have to be achievable."

Well, you can't argue with that logic.

That .edu would be just about every .edu there is but sure, even though you misused basic terminology, of course you know better than all of them.

Of course you do!

No, I'm not confusing capital with capitalism. Thats a lazy response that shows you didn't understand what was said to you.

Yes, you would have control over "things" and royal charters were to hand out monopolies to some joint stock companies, not all, as many didn't need them due to the freedom of trade they had. There's also no such things as a crown chartered corporation.

You want to pin the start in the Renaissance while also saying it started with the first stock exchange.

As I said above, you had no idea what was said to you and it doesn't seem like you know what you're talking about here either but that doesnt seem to be stopping you. Nope, it barely even slowed you down. This might help: j

oint stock company =/= a stock exchange.

There wouldn't have been enough exchanges of stock to justify a dedicated stock exchange, at the start, now would there? It would be a weird thing to have, right at the beginning, dont you think?

David hume wrote about capitalism, within capitalism, according to David hume. I know you think you know better than practicality every university and wiki too but I doubt even that level of arrogance could make someone believe they know David hume better than David hume. Also, preindustrial capitalism exists. So, we can dismiss that, without a second thought.

Much like capitalism, merchantislism started before you seem to think it did. The acts of enclosure were the death throws of the last part of feudalism, within a mercantile economy, in much the same way that you can have socialised housing, within a capitalist economy.

So, you can't actually say what change ushered in capitalism. Its just that you don't like how it came to be or the baggage it has to carry. So, instead, despite the existence of capitalist vehicles of enterprise, we're to believe that capitalism didn't come into existence until about sometime around the labour reforms where it was presumably baptised, to wash away its prior sins.

Apparently, unlike wiki and all those stupid universities, it seems that capitalism came into being when we all beleived in glorious free trade hard enough for it to be immaculately convinced as the natural economy we were always meant to have.

At least it can now be seen that you confused "capitalism" with "industrial capitalism."

There's no such thing as free trade and there never had been. I would have to disagree that its an ideological tent pole. It's high school propaganda, made specifically to sell an appallingly unfair and un-free economic system. Unfortunately, you've shown yourself to be smart enough to have to be held to a higher standard than that.

In fact, using the same logic you presented, we wouldn't be living under capitalism now. After all, you can't have free trade when the American and Russian military industrial complexes were having a state sanctioned war over who gets the oil plantations.....

Sorry, no, not profit seeking markets. Thats not even close what I said. I very clearly pointed out the commonly accepted birth of capitalism: the invention of joint stock companies and the risk mitigation that arose around it (the invention of capital or the capitalisation of assets, with a view to a profit). Although, ultimately, capitalism's roots can be traced back to the slave economy of the Romans (which is why right wingers love them so much) but I don't imagine thats what you meant.

The industrial revolution, like capitalism, started during the renaissance. The "mid" part youre thinking of is the expansion of capitalism, not its origin.

If not, as universities have accepted, the invention of capital, at what point did the formation of joint stock companies develop into capitalism and what specifically changed it to capitalism from, presumably, the legal recognition of sparkling joint-capitalised enterprise, undertaken with a view to a profit?

We might have to agree to disagree but one of my main points is that there's nothing natural about capitalisms evolution at all. I agree that its presented to us as the natural state of things that all came to be organically, in the exact same way that the divine right of Kings was.

That too was a lie.

No one would work for a company where they didn't get a cut of the profit, unless it was turn up when you want and work when you like kind of work. People could do that, as many had access to common land to both live on and grow food.

They had to be dispossessed of their land, brutally put down when they rose up again and again over it, then killed, starved, imprisoned, whipped and or branded until they accepted their fate. They had to effectively re-colonise the UK.

This is why they dont teach the origins of capitalism in school. Funny how we learn about feudalism and its origins but not that. Well, tbf, the origin of capitalism is its own critique, from which it cannot morally recover from. So, that would be why.

For sure, merchantislism was very controlled too. I meant in terms of the market having that potential, according to the Hobbesian view of the time but that's fair enough to clarify.

On the contrary, the formation of joint stock companies, to whom monopoly contracts were given, was the birth of capitalism and, like capitalism has always been, there was nothing democratic about it. Not even Slightly. For example, the Royal African company was handed a monopoly of the transatlantic slave trade. Capitalism is both the antithesis ruin of democracy. It's economic aristocracy which makes sense when you remember where it came from.

Capitalism was always meant to consolidate power. It's capitalism's nature and I believe capitalism began earlier than people realise. Its also far more intimately linked to slavery and the slave trade than anyone would be comfortable with.

This is why they don't teach the birth of capitalism is school. Its history is its own critique, from which it can't morally recover. Its illegal to critique capitalism in just about every school in the west. I'm not even talking your Marxist level stuff. I mean anything other than "this exact form of capitalism is perfect in every single way" is illegal.

Oh yeah, that's because the vast majority of people beleive we jumped straight from feudalism to capitalism, without merchantislism in between.

That's where a lot of the disconnect comes in. In a world of cottage industries and small holdings, choice really could mean something. Everyone being ruthlessly self interested could've, potentially, worked out. Without market makers etc. the best idea and the brightest people may well have risen to the top and the market could've made that happen.

However, that was merchantislism. In the world of capitalism, that's make believe fantasy nonsense that shows capitalists to be just as utopian as any socialist.

I mean, it was literally invented, due to the changes brought about by the industrial because the aristocracy were terrified they might have to start working for a living. It wasn't some natural state we defaulted to. It didn't happen by magic or divine providence. It wasn't chosen because it was the most fair or stood up to scrutiny the best.

Nope, it's literally the greed and entitled laziness of the British upper classes, expressed in economic form.

I beleive most farms in the UK are leased now days. Not sure about anywhere else though.