God and Money

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] There are social thinkers who have made that very point. Marx pointed out that within capitalism exists many contradictions that he theorized would make it unsustainable. His many argument being the rich feeding/profiting from the work of poor or in this case slaves.Diablo-B

No, that doesn't make capitalist theory itself self contradictory. That would mean that the U.S. wasn't by definition technically entirely capitalist. And yes, the rich were exploiting the poor via slavery, but that doesn't make it a product of capitalism.

Fair enough.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]Why yes i do...and Capitalism cannot be called the system in the South..Hewkii

But there was no free marketXx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]But there was no free marketHewkii

[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]Why yes i do...and Capitalism cannot be called the system in the South..Xx_Hopeless_xX

Not entirely free..but you asked for a definition and i gave you one..the situation in the South was as far from that definition as imaginableXx_Hopeless_xX

But there was no free market..therefore the "business"..i use the term loosely..owners could not dictate a price as they HAD to supply Britain with the goods..they couldn't choose price as Britain was their only customer...Xx_Hopeless_xX

What the hell are you talking about? There was a lot of trade going on just between the Colonies and the Caribbean. And Spain. And France. And the natives.

Not to mention all the trade going on between the colonies and the west coast of Africa.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]But there was no free market..therefore the "business"..i use the term loosely..owners could not dictate a price as they HAD to supply Britain with the goods..they couldn't choose price as Britain was their only customer...br0kenrabbit

What the hell are you talking about? There was a lot of trade going on just between the Colonies and the Caribbean. And Spain. And France. And the natives.

Not to mention all the trade going on between the colonies and the west coast of Africa.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]But there was no free market..therefore the "business"..i use the term loosely..owners could not dictate a price as they HAD to supply Britain with the goods..they couldn't choose price as Britain was their only customer...Xx_Hopeless_xX

What the hell are you talking about? There was a lot of trade going on just between the Colonies and the Caribbean. And Spain. And France. And the natives.

Not to mention all the trade going on between the colonies and the west coast of Africa.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]Not entirely free..but you asked for a definition and i gave you one..the situation in the South was as far from that definition as imaginableHewkii

Its a mix of capitalism and socialism. I'm speaking as a religious Muslim here. The Islamic economical system is based on the following:

1-You can have as much money and properties as you can, but you must acquire it by Halal (in ways that are approved in Islam).

2-You must pay Zakah. Its an annual fee of all your money and properties that goes to the poor. In Islam its 2.5% of the total capital.

3-Islamic government must NOT take any form of taxes.

4-Interest is Haram(prohibited in Islam).GazaAli

Well this Islamic economic system does not seem so bad. The only tax is a little bit skimmed off for the poor. How many Islamic countries actually follow this though? I mean its gotta be hard for any government to not make its citizens pay taxes.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

What the hell are you talking about? There was a lot of trade going on just between the Colonies and the Caribbean. And Spain. And France. And the natives.

Not to mention all the trade going on between the colonies and the west coast of Africa.

Diablo-B

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="Diablo-B"] That has nothing to do with that fact that if the means of production is privately owned then the system is capitalistDiablo-B

Unless of course you were black. Then the government would legally protect plantation owners' ability to keep you from private trade or property ownership.

How about you define it first and we'll try and work with that?..Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]How about you define it first and we'll try and work with that?..Hewkii

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

What the hell are you talking about? There was a lot of trade going on just between the Colonies and the Caribbean. And Spain. And France. And the natives.

Not to mention all the trade going on between the colonies and the west coast of Africa.

Diablo-B

It varies by degree. Historically, here probably never has been an entirely capitalist economy.

Erm, if he's God, presupposing the Abrahamic deity, then he's omnipotent, so if he truly wanted to, he could just create everyone the resources which they wanted, whenever they wanted and there'd be no need for economic systems.

Other answer: dunno lol

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] So just because there's a privately owned business that makes it capitalist?..I think not..coolbeans90

Unless of course you were black. Then the government would legally protect plantation owners' ability to keep you from private trade or property ownership.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Diablo-B"] Uhh yes. If you mean a completely free market then there has never been one but that is a close to one as your gonna find. Today we have a capitalist system with social reforms. Back then there was even more freedom in the market.Diablo-B

Unless of course you were black. Then the government would legally protect plantation owners' ability to keep you from private trade or property ownership.

And the reduction of state sponsored restrictions trade on those groups would be a further more towards capitalism. (a major move with regards to slavery. In terms of sheer numbers, it was probably more capitalistic back then. Due in part to an expansion of government in other areas. It's really hard to quantify though. They are more capitalistic than each other in different ways.

I'm not dodging by any stretch..i did in fact state they do not exist as intended to..which were were discussing..the definition of capitalism..when you asked if one existed as i defined...Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]I'm not dodging by any stretch..i did in fact state they do not exist as intended to..which were were discussing..the definition of capitalism..when you asked if one existed as i defined...Hewkii

you couldn't form a private business really...you were either lucky enough to be born into a plantation owners family..rich enough to start your own..or you were poor..Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="aransom"]

Capitalism. In the parable of the talents the lord was pleased with the servants that worked to increase their talents, and displeased with the servant that didn't work and didn't increase his talents. If Jesus were a Commie, the parable would have ended with the lord taking all the talents away from the three servants and redistributing them equally between them.

br0kenrabbit

The Talents belonged to their master, not to them.

"Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned Iwould have received it back with interest."

It's a parable anyway and not really about money at all.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]

[QUOTE="aransom"]

Capitalism. In the parable of the talents the lord was pleased with the servants that worked to increase their talents, and displeased with the servant that didn't work and didn't increase his talents. If Jesus were a Commie, the parable would have ended with the lord taking all the talents away from the three servants and redistributing them equally between them.

ChrisSpartan117

The Talents belonged to their master, not to them.

"Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned Iwould have received it back with interest."

It's a parable anyway and not really about money at all.

Yeah, did you just not read my last line or what?