Are we the original Capitalists?

[min]

Hey Y'All!

Haven't posted in a while so am posting my heart out now.
Read Vicky's article recently regarding Li Ka Shing and in light of that I have a few questions/opinions that I'd love to hear. One of the first questions that spring to mind is - are we the original capitalists? - in this day and age we would probably consider America to be the biggest capitalist country in the world, however, in the past, we were ruled by monarchy and then eventually by communism - the past 100+ years in Hong Kong can be called democracy kind of I guess, but more realistically is it not capitalism? - after all, a lot of Hong Kong families still don't have their own flats (not even houses!) due to the cost of housing - this is usually caused by monopoly of house pricing by the excessively rich. In Hong Kong there is such a huge divide in the living standards of people. We might put the housing crisis down to the size of the population, however, in all honesty look at Luxembourg, why don't they have exactly the same problems?
The other question I have to ask is - are we spreading capitalism? After all, we are the second generation - our parents strived to give us their best - by working hard and earning money. This imposes on us certain ways of living - such as our generation striving to earn salaries with extra digits in the end, the labels, 'good' jobs, 'great' educations - those things our parents didn't have at our age but which they are proud that we should have (whether by giving or prompting) - are we pressurising ourselves into becoming another Capitalist mogul therefore dragging our societies around us into the same whirlwinds? - after all, if we succeed then someone else has had to fail (eg. in any given company there can be only one boss and many underlings, only a bad company would have the reversed unless it's a consultancy firm or similar).
Before you answer these questions, please take into consideration that I never said capitalism is a bad thing, nor did I say it was good either.

[whykay]

I've never thought about it that way. All I know is that I must earn as much money in case of setbacks such as layoffs, extra money to pay the ever increasing rent, or a chance to move somewhere and setup up anew. Save, save, save..(how boring is that?) Money is not happiness, but we can't do without it either?!? How much is enough? We will never know. People are greedy, nothing can change that.
But I would not want to stamp Chinese people as the original Capitalists, materialistic and money-hungry as we are. I don't know. I am not for or against this, but this may raise a thorny issue here.

[whykay]

Just re-reading this again... wonder who really was the first capitalist? Um, the Romans? The Egyptians... the Chinese?

[whykay]

People's Daily - List-mania: Who is the richest in China?

[William_juve_lee]

I think that there are no 1st capitalist in this world.
Things evolve.
I mean ancient times and maybe the Renaisance, there were businessmen etc.
But over the years, the methods change.
I mean, yes there are many multibillionaire businessmen in this world, they are considered capitalist, but are they the 1st, maybe not.
Are they pioneers and innovative at creating things and making things happen. The majority are.
Some are just thieves, but many would not be rich and successful without their own methods.

future entrepreneurs, will in fact use a basis or structure of previous businesses, but many develop there own unique stance.
Those that are very innovative and lucky will succeed.
(After failure of course. The best lessons in life are the failures that you experiences.)

The best way to make money would be to work hard and save.
But half of the savings would be better in wise investments.
Depending on your attitude to risk.
The best would be treasury bonds and property.
Stock is medium risky depending. You need to have a large portfolio to be safe, even though there will always be risk involved.
The other half would be best left for a rainy day.

[conscious]

if you specifically single out china and the west, china failed by modern society.

modern society is properous and essentially growing. a growing economy means a growing society.

china discovered, invented the first, pioneered the better, much before the west but it fell. it fell because it did not spread.

unlike the west it did not exploit its findings. it did not standardise its policys.
simply it did not capitalise.

but today it is growing, slowly but gradually.