[ingliz]

In France

We were not discussing France.

Why would they sell it

Bankruptcy; strict settlement burdened landowners' with debt and charges.

When he succeeded to the title in 1844 the new Marquess inherited debts of nearly £400,000 – fourteen times the annual rental. He had no choice but to let the Court arrange the sale of the 30,000 acres, which remained.

to the period AFTER the time of rampant child labor, brutal working conditions, and subsistence wages.

I was discussing land ownership and its relation to capital, not rampant child labour, brutal working conditions, and subsistence wages.

indisputably

Land ownership confers power; money buys land; money conferred power.

indisputably

An Act of Queen Anne's reign stated that a member of the House of Commons had to have " an estate in land which in the case of a knight of the shire must be worth £600 a year, in the case of a burgess £300 ".

By "worth" is meant the amount of rent a property is capable of generating according to assessments by the fiscal authorities.

Land per se, acreage held, was not the test.

[ingliz]

Blatant equivocation fallacy

Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money, which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of a commodity, realised in selling the commodity for a Profit.

Accounting capital can be used to buy anything

But in this case it was used to buy a property right, a share in the ownership of the capital goods of a company. Before the passing of the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, most businesses were operated as unincorporated associations. An 'unincorporated association' does not have separate legal personality.

[Truth To Power]

In France

We were not discussing France.

We were discussing the relationships between capital ownership, landownership, and political power; and France is a country that exemplifies those relationships just as validly as Britain or any other country.

Why would they sell it

Bankruptcy; strict settlement burdened landowners' with debt and charges.

Yes, well, a landowner has to be pretty stupid to go bankrupt, so it didn't happen very often.

to the period AFTER the time of rampant child labor, brutal working conditions, and subsistence wages.

I was discussing land ownership and its relation to capital, not rampant child labour, brutal working conditions, and subsistence wages.

No, you just refused to discuss the relation of landownership to capital in France. And you seem conveniently to have "forgotten" that we were discussing the extent to which capital ownership and landownership enable the owners to impose exploitive conditions on labor.

indisputably

Land ownership confers power; money buys land; money conferred power.

So you agree that it is landowning that confers power even in the absence of money ownership, while ownership of money (or capital goods) in the absence of landowning does not. I.e., that I am right and you are wrong.

indisputably

An Act of Queen Anne's reign stated that a member of the House of Commons had to have " an estate in land which in the case of a knight of the shire must be worth £600 a year, in the case of a burgess £300 ".

By "worth" is meant the amount of rent a property is capable of generating according to assessments by the fiscal authorities.

Land per se, acreage held, was not the test.

Now you are really being disingenuous. Land may be measured by the acre just as paintings may be measured by the size of their canvas; but you know perfectly well people do not own land in order to own more acres, any more than they own paintings in order to own more area of canvas. They own it in order to exercise control of the economic advantage its use confers, which is nicely measured by its rental value.

[ingliz]

They own it in order to exercise control of the economic advantage its use confers

So after all your blathering you concede.

[Truth To Power]

Blatant equivocation fallacy

Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money

No, it is not. You are equivocating between capital in the economic sense and capital in the accounting sense, and getting both wrong.

Capital in the economic sense began with the first durable tools -- which were capital goods -- millions of years ago, while money is only a few thousand years old.

and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation.

Nope. Refuted above. All production that employs formerly produced goods involves capital.

Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation.

No, it does not. It is purely a matter of the use to which it is put. Money devoted to obtaining income is capital in the accounting sense by definition.

See? Even though you are trying to equivocate between economic and accounting capital, you can't even get the accounting definition of capital straight.

Money, which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities.

Wrong again. Money which is used to buy assets that will yield income is capital in the accounting sense.

On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again.

Absolute garbage. Where did you get such an absurd notion? Which dictionary supports such idiosyncratic usage?

This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling as money advanced only in order to get it back again.

Then what do you call the products of labor that are used to aid further production?

Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit.

What "commodity"? How can consuming something increase its value?

You have disappeared down the rabbit hole of your own absurdities.

Accounting capital can be used to buy anything

But in this case it was used to buy a property right, a share in the ownership of the capital goods of a company.

Which, unlike ownership of land, conferred only the power to offer opportunities to workers, not to deprive them of opportunity.

Before the passing of the Joint Stock Companies Act 1844, most businesses were operated as unincorporated associations.

No, most businesses were operated as sole proprietorships or partnerships.

You just have to find new ways to be wrong, don't you?

[ingliz]

most businesses were operated as... partnerships.

Unincorporated associations are partnerships.

[Truth To Power]

They own it in order to exercise control of the economic advantage its use confers

So after all your blathering you agree with me and money is king.

No, such blatant falsehoods are always absurd and dishonest. Money did not even exist until a few thousand years ago, while landowning had long before established the landowners as kings.

If you have all the money in the world, and I have all the land, what do you think I will charge you for your first night's lodging?

See how easily the landowner enslaves the money owner? See how easily I prove all your claims false and dishonest?

[ingliz]

If you have all the money in the world, and I have all the land, what do you think I will charge you for your first night's lodging?

Nothing, because I would put my money to good use and put a contract out on you. With you out of the way, I would still have almost all the money, and all of the land would be mine.

[Truth To Power]

If you have all the money in the world, and I have all the land, what do you think I will charge you for your first night's lodging?

Nothing, because I would put my money to good use and put a contract out on you.

No, you would not, because anyone who might take such a contract would know that as the landowner, I am well protected by those who need to use land to live -- which is everybody. They would therefore do better by just killing you instead of me, taking your money for themselves, and reporting your treachery and their loyal service to me. That's the problem with hiring hit men.

Of course, there have been historical cases where moneyed landless people came into conflict with big landowners (like kings). The landowners almost always won. In fact, English history records that when Jewish bankers had all the money and the landowner -- the king -- was deeply in debt to them, he just expelled them from his land, and deleted the debts. Why didn't they hire hit men, as you propose to do? Because they knew the landowner was the one who already had the hit men on his payroll, not the money owner, because THAT'S WHAT HAD MADE HIM THE LANDOWNER IN THE FIRST PLACE. The landowner only got the land by violence, while the money owner got the money in trade. The landowner knows how to use violence, the money owner does not. The latter knows (though you are too full of yourself to figure it out) that in any contest of arms, the landowner is going to start out with a huge advantage of experience and resources.

CAPISCI??

With you out of the way, I would still have almost all the money, and all of the land would be mine.

I see. That must be why historically, people with money were able to hire hit men to kill the landowners, and ended up with their land....

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: it was the landowners who had the private armies of hit men, and took all the money from landless fools who mistakenly thought their money gave them power.

How on earth do you mistakenly imagine you could end up with the land? Your money is worthless without permission to use the land, and even if you succeeded in killing me, the same power that made the land mine would certainly give it to my heirs, not to you. If it is violence that will determine possession, what is your hit man's motive for even letting you live, let alone permitting you to profit from his work? If violence is permitted, all your money is nothing but a target painted on your back. That's the Lesson of Feudalism.

You need to stop typing and start thinking. But I won't hold my breath.

[ingliz]

landless people came into conflict with big landowners (like kings).

Where are the kings now?

hit men... the Lesson of Feudalism.

Hiring hit men and the decline of feudalism: when nobles were allowed to pay for soldiers rather than to fight themselves, the mercenaries had few allegiances, except to money.

historically

When a cheap seat in a rotten borough costs around £5000, it is a lot easier to buy a seat in Parliament than go on a killing spree.

landowners

Lord Mulgrave referred in 1803 to the existence of a "strong body of country gentlemen in both Houses of Parliament".

Country gentlemen were being constantly recruited from the ranks of lawyers, country attorneys, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers. So the Barings, the London bankers, became country gentlemen and later, peers. Peel, the cotton spinner, became a baronet and Lord of the Manor of Dray too... The father of Lord Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, was a Newcastle coal merchant who was said to have invested his savings in a public house.

Given the evidence, the only reason you would deny that the "money men" are buying power, is your argument demands it.

[Truth To Power]

Given the evidence, the only reason you would deny that the "money men" are buying power, is your argument demands it.

I've stated explicitly that money -- purchasing power -- can buy other kinds of power. But money is not capital in the economic sense, and buying capital -- the "power" only to offer people opportunities they would not otherwise have had -- is not the same as buying a land title -- the power to deprive people of opportunities they would otherwise have had.

[ingliz]

I could just as easily say the landowners offered people opportunities they would not otherwise have had. It was they who enclosed the land, freed up labour, industrialised farming and by the abolition of the Statute of Artificers, the Bubble Act and the Usury Laws; the reform of the patent system; and the Repeal of the Corn Laws created a legal environment that made capitalism possible.

[Truth To Power]

I could just as easily say the landowners offered people opportunities they would not otherwise have had.

Yes, you could; but then you would be lying, because you know perfectly well that the only thing the landowner is offering -- the land -- was already there, ready to use, with no help from the landowner or any previous landowner, and that people would have been perfectly at liberty to use the land if the landowner had never existed. You know these facts, but you have to pretend, even to yourself, that you do not know them, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

It was they who enclosed the land,

Depriving others of the opportunity to use it. Right.

freed up labour,

By depriving working people of the opportunity to labor using the resources nature provided, forcing them to offer their services to other landowners and capital owners on whatever terms were available, or starve. Right.

industrialised farming

Nope. Landowners had no role in industrializing farming. They simply charged others more for the opportunity to farm when the advent of industrial methods of agriculture made it more profitable to use the land for that purpose.

and by the abolition of the Statute of Artificers, the Bubble Act and the Usury Laws; the reform of the patent system; and the Repeal of the Corn Laws created a legal environment that made capitalism possible.

Nope. Wrong again. Capitalism was already in place before any of that happened. And to claim that this "offered people opportunity" is disingenuous to say the least. Saying that depriving the landless of their rights to liberty "offered capital owners an opportunity" to employ them at lower wages and in inferior conditions is logically -- and morally -- equivalent to claiming that smashing in someone's door "offers people opportunity" because it gives thieves an opportunity to take their stuff. It's just (surprise!) fallacious, absurd and dishonest.

You are disgracing yourself with such patently dishonest garbage.

[ingliz]

Capitalism was already in place before any of that happened.

A 'capitalism' without capital accumulation is hardly capitalism.

Between 1760 and 1800, the real wage grew slowly (.39% per annum) but so did output per worker (.26%), capital per worker and total factor productivity (.19%). Between 1800 and 1830, the famous inventions of the industrial revolution came on stream and raised aggregate TFP growth to .69% per year. This technology shock pushed up growth in output per worker to .63% pa but had little impact on capital accumulation...

[Truth To Power]

Capitalism was already in place before any of that happened.

A 'capitalism' without capital accumulation is hardly capitalism.

And how does capital accumulation happen without capitalism, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Between 1760 and 1800, the real wage grew slowly (.39% per annum) but so did output per worker (.26%), capital per worker and total factor productivity (.19%). Between 1800 and 1830, the famous inventions of the industrial revolution came on stream and raised aggregate TFP growth to .69% per year. This technology shock pushed up growth in output per worker to .63% pa but had little impact on capital accumulation...

How is capital defined, and its accumulation measured? There's the rub.

[ingliz]

And how does capital accumulation happen without capitalism,hmmmm...?

I did not dispute it was a capitalism of sorts, but it was only after 1800 that the revolutionized industries were
large enough to affect the national economy.

The word you seem to be stuck on defined:

hardly adverb

1. scarcely (used to qualify a statement by saying that it is true to an insignificant degree)

—used to emphasize a minimal amount.

[Truth To Power]

And how does capital accumulation happen without capitalism,hmmmm...?

I did not dispute it was a capitalism of sorts, but it was only after 1800 that the revolutionized industries were
large enough to affect the national economy.

OK, so you are just a bit unclear on the difference between capitalism and industrialization.

[ingliz]

OK, so you are just a bit unclear on the difference between capitalism and industrialization.

Industrialism and capitalism in Western Europe are inseparable.

[Truth To Power]

OK, so you are just a bit unclear on the difference between capitalism and industrialization.

Industrialism and capitalism in Western Europe are inseparable.

Ah, no, they are not, as proved by the places that are capitalist but have no industry, such as Monaco, rural areas of France and Spain, most of the Scottish islands, etc.

And confining it to Western Europe just removes the non-capitalist industrialization of places like Russia and China from the evidence.

Because you always have to delete the facts that prove you wrong. Always.

[ingliz]

Ah, no, they are not, as proved by the places that are capitalist but have no industry, such as Monaco, rural areas of France and Spain, most of the Scottish islands, etc.

Monaco’s economic and regulatory system is closely tied to that of France. France, Spain, and the United Kingdom are industrialised nations with post-industrial economies.

have no industry, such as Monaco

Monaco has industry.

This industry covers a very wide range of sectors: printing, cosmetology, pharmaceutics, chemicals, plastic processing industries (automobile equipment, mechanical and electronic components), building materials, household appliances, etc.