Portrait of a 47% moocher

[ksen]

Nah, they'd cut him out if the shoes sell. If you're saying he therefore probably wouldn't make the offer he makes in your scenario, I agree. That's the point.

No, I mean you're saying they're willing to take all the risks the entrepreneur was willing to take. Unless you believe business is static, and once the shoes start selling they will always continue to sell, and that nobody else will ever come along and say "here is a new model, cheaper and better."

Cutting him out means cutting out the risk taker. It doesn't mean he won't invest because they'll cut him out. It means if they cut him out then all the risks are on them now.

Merchants like yours evolved into capitalists with the advent of steam powered factories which out-produced the artisans by orders of magnitude. Then they exploited the fuck out of people.

The scale is irrelevant. If the capitalist of the factory is a moocher, so is the capitalist of my example.

I said nothing about "moochers" and there isn't a capitalist in your example.

From page 12, my original scenario.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

I suppose if one is using some very special definition of the word "capitalist" one could then claim there isn't one, but no regularly used definition fits your statement of how there isn't one.

a capitalist would own the means of production and in your scenario he doesn't

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ah, just as I suspected, a specialized definition.

 

[ksen]

capitalists owning the means of production is hardly a "specialized definition"

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Using that as the only criterion is a specialized definition.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Nah, they'd cut him out if the shoes sell. If you're saying he therefore probably wouldn't make the offer he makes in your scenario, I agree. That's the point.

No, I mean you're saying they're willing to take all the risks the entrepreneur was willing to take.

Not once the shoes sell.

Unless you believe business is static, and once the shoes start selling they will always continue to sell, and that nobody else will ever come along and say "here is a new model, cheaper and better."

Cutting him out means cutting out the risk taker. It doesn't mean he won't invest because they'll cut him out. It means if they cut him out then all the risks are on them now.

See above. Unless they believe the sales are a strict one-off, they're better off cutting him out and continuing until such time as sales dry up.

Merchants like yours evolved into capitalists with the advent of steam powered factories which out-produced the artisans by orders of magnitude. Then they exploited the fuck out of people.

The scale is irrelevant. If the capitalist of the factory is a moocher, so is the capitalist of my example.

I said nothing about "moochers" and there isn't a capitalist in your example.

From page 12, my original scenario.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

I suppose if one is using some very special definition of the word "capitalist" one could then claim there isn't one, but no regularly used definition fits your statement of how there isn't one.

The 400m hurdles is, by any regular definition, athletics, but if you fall on your arse at the first hurdle, you're no athlete.

He also does not own the MOP (as others point out).

Your scenario has a merchant attempting to become a capitalist. If the shoes don't sell, he's a failed one. If they do he'd be cut out and thereafter a merchant or a de-facto employee of others with their own capital. He'd need some other advantage he could exploit.