That doesn't matter because there is a difference between simply spending money and having your whole identity revolve around consumption.
This is just another Consoomer. Those people come in both wealthy and poor types. It doesn't actually have anything to do with promoting a free market.
Actually hording money is normally stupid and unprofitable in a free market. This is what most businesses would call: zero cash flow, or "death". It's why Socialists like Maynard Keynes helped create a system where the money would always be spent, rather than held for a later date.
The reason you have money is to do something with it, not sit on it Scrooge McDuck style, and even then, no one who you would call a Capitalist would actually do that. Only stupid, useless, rich Hollywood actors, or BLM activists do that.
Capitalists love cheap labor. It's strange to even question that idea.
It's because you're using the Socialist definition of the word, while I'm referring to someone who basically just wants people not to fuck up the market with state intervention. Cheap labor isn't necessarily a good thing, because the quality of your labor might also be dropping.
It's only good for the Corporatists who insists on using massive structures and enormous economies of scale to make profits off of infinitely small margins.
Yes, exactly. Feminists make excellent consoomers because they have nothing else. Even the "furbabies" become commodified.
It's because you're using the Socialist definition of the word
I'm using the word correctly, capitalists accumulate capital by way of owning and investing in things. That's capitalism. It has nothing to do with free market astrology.
Markets have never been free and conflict between the state and private sector is mostly imaginary or driven by conflicts between competing business interests. The "market" has long since worked hand-in-hand with the state, from the Enclosure Acts, to the United Fruit Company, to the Federal Reserve, and up today, to Google and Amazon.
I'm using the word correctly, capitalists accumulate capital by way of owning and investing in things. That's capitalism. It has nothing to do with free market astrology.
No, now you've switched from the Marxist definition of Capitalism (where it's the core of your identity), to an economic definition of capitalism, which is simply academic.
And if that were your argument, then it makes even less sense than your use of the Marxist definition. People who use their money as form of investing in businesses in order to give them the capital liquidity to expand and earn a profit are not universally looking to have cheap labor. Investing in higher quality labor for a more efficient system is likely a better strategy than just having "cheap" labor. The kind of Capitalist you're talking about cares about the quality of the business they invested in more than anything else.
Hell, the kind of Capitalist you just defined is the kind of Capitalist that stands against your Marxist definition, and explicitly says, "Cash is a Bad Investment"
Markets have never been free and conflict between the state and private sector is mostly imaginary or driven by conflicts between competing business interests.
That's not really true. It's more true during the reign of Feudalism, but free markets have and do exist, and they have been most common in England under Liberal philosophies that emphasized private property rights, and prevented the state from simply imposing it's agenda on everyone, and allowed people to develop an economy on their own, while the state could be rewarded for sitting the fuck out and letting people make themselves rich.
That doesn't matter because there is a difference between simply spending money and having your whole identity revolve around consumption.
Capitalists love cheap labor. It's strange to even question that idea.
This is just another Consoomer. Those people come in both wealthy and poor types. It doesn't actually have anything to do with promoting a free market.
Actually hording money is normally stupid and unprofitable in a free market. This is what most businesses would call: zero cash flow, or "death". It's why Socialists like Maynard Keynes helped create a system where the money would always be spent, rather than held for a later date.
The reason you have money is to do something with it, not sit on it Scrooge McDuck style, and even then, no one who you would call a Capitalist would actually do that. Only stupid, useless, rich Hollywood actors, or BLM activists do that.
It's because you're using the Socialist definition of the word, while I'm referring to someone who basically just wants people not to fuck up the market with state intervention. Cheap labor isn't necessarily a good thing, because the quality of your labor might also be dropping.
It's only good for the Corporatists who insists on using massive structures and enormous economies of scale to make profits off of infinitely small margins.
Yes, exactly. Feminists make excellent consoomers because they have nothing else. Even the "furbabies" become commodified.
I'm using the word correctly, capitalists accumulate capital by way of owning and investing in things. That's capitalism. It has nothing to do with free market astrology.
Markets have never been free and conflict between the state and private sector is mostly imaginary or driven by conflicts between competing business interests. The "market" has long since worked hand-in-hand with the state, from the Enclosure Acts, to the United Fruit Company, to the Federal Reserve, and up today, to Google and Amazon.
No, now you've switched from the Marxist definition of Capitalism (where it's the core of your identity), to an economic definition of capitalism, which is simply academic.
And if that were your argument, then it makes even less sense than your use of the Marxist definition. People who use their money as form of investing in businesses in order to give them the capital liquidity to expand and earn a profit are not universally looking to have cheap labor. Investing in higher quality labor for a more efficient system is likely a better strategy than just having "cheap" labor. The kind of Capitalist you're talking about cares about the quality of the business they invested in more than anything else.
Hell, the kind of Capitalist you just defined is the kind of Capitalist that stands against your Marxist definition, and explicitly says, "Cash is a Bad Investment"
That's not really true. It's more true during the reign of Feudalism, but free markets have and do exist, and they have been most common in England under Liberal philosophies that emphasized private property rights, and prevented the state from simply imposing it's agenda on everyone, and allowed people to develop an economy on their own, while the state could be rewarded for sitting the fuck out and letting people make themselves rich.