191–200 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've also long been perturbed by the definition of capitalism largely focusing on markets, private property, and even entrepreneurship. Since those are like, as old as human civilization probably.
Why does the idea that capitalism has co-existed with civilization perturb you? Not criticizing, just honestly curious.
OK so... the "no true scotsman" game between warring ideologies is what it is. Marx more or less invents "capitalism" in his critique of it. Pro capitalists then came in with their own definitions of capitalism. Later anti-communists insist(ed) that socialism=stalin, and capitalism means liberalism. Whatever. Capitalism means different things. I'm not going to unknot that mess. But... I will say that etymologically (…
I've also long been perturbed by the definition of capitalism largely focusing on markets, private property, and even entrepreneurship. Since those are like, as old as human civilization probably.
There is always a justification offered for this, which is that the losses go to capital also (i.e. investing capital in some enterprise is more risky than investing labor or ideas). There are numerous, excellent refutations to this claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism quite clearly requires strong regulation. At least, any sort of positive capitalism that doesn't immediately succumb to monopolies, cartels and corruption. The problem is that the loudest voices arguing for capitalism, also tend to argue against regulation, accountability, and that sort of thing.
Regulation implies regulators, and regulators can become a bottleneck for power. They can demand bribes and favors in exchange for being allowed to operate and they can use their power to selectively eliminate political opponents sources of power. Read "The Path to Power", LBJ biography. They describe this process plainly and how he continuously used his across his entire career in this way. Its very enlightening.
[flagged]
Yes, the fundamental problem is that there is a strong feedback loop between capital and income, so that the more capital is accumulated, the more it produces income. In practical terms, it means that the rich can not only buy rewards for the work they've put in, they can also buy opportunities for additional income---opportunities that poorer people could've won with hard work but now are no longer available. This f…
As long as that capital is devoted to productive activities, such as investment in a company that employs people, or equipment that had to be manufactured and is used productively, I've no problem with that. None of those economic functions could have been substituted by labour, it took capital to do it, and in fact those activities promote and reward labour.
So we need to incentivise productive uses of capital, and tax unproductive uses. What's important is that capital is mostly used to benefit society, and capitalism has proved incredibly good at doing that efficiently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Capitalism quite clearly requires strong regulation. At least, any sort of positive capitalism that doesn't immediately succumb to monopolies, cartels and corruption. The problem is that the loudest voices arguing for capitalism, also tend to argue against regulation, accountability, and that sort of thing.
They argue against regulations because: - Regulations are often used as a tool of corruption and cronyism, e.g. regulation of housing construction entrenching landowner power. - Regulations can block legitimate progress, e.g. the private antigen tests that were blocked throughout 2020. - Regulations create complexity which acts as both a barrier to entry which creates monopolies, and as a hidden tax. - Regulations ar…
Blindly trusting regulators to know what's best is just as bad as blindly trusting corporations to know what's best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, but getting rid of capitalism doesn't get rid of capital. No economic system has ever done that, and so you still have the problem that whoever controls capital has the power that comes with it. So who gets to control the capital, and what system of laws and regulations do we enforce that both protect and circumscribe how that capital is managed and used? This is the problem Marxists have struggled with, and neve…
I think capitalism is great, it has a lot of benefits. But it can't just be left open-loop. You're right that the concentration cannot be avoided, but it can be mitigated so that it does not become catastrophic, which I would argue is the point we are nearing. Wealth and income disparities have not always been as acute as they are today.
Look at China, Capitalism transformed that country. I know, my wife is Chinese and I first went there in 2001. It's raised hundreds of millions of people out of poverty after half a century of grinding poverty and starvation.
As for growing wealth inequality, that seems to be mainly a US phenomenon, the evidence for it having grown in Europe is pretty weak. I certainly don't see it as inevitable, it's an issue of direction and leadership.
For the political experts out there, what would happen if we stopped allowing lobbying? That seems to me like the most obvious source of corruption. Edit: ok, I should have worded better. What if we stopped allowing corporate lobbying through donations to elected officials? I understand there would be loopholes to close, but isn't this the obvious source of government corruption?
You will have to format the drive and install a new Government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what is your solution? You can say something is flawed, but compared to what, and how would you improve it?
It's ok to express frustration with something without having a solution to it.
If you are against it and you don’t have a solution then you are simply destructive.
OK so... the "no true scotsman" game between warring ideologies is what it is. Marx more or less invents "capitalism" in his critique of it. Pro capitalists then came in with their own definitions of capitalism. Later anti-communists insist(ed) that socialism=stalin, and capitalism means liberalism. Whatever. Capitalism means different things. I'm not going to unknot that mess. But... I will say that etymologically (…
I've also long been perturbed by the definition of capitalism largely focusing on markets, private property, and even entrepreneurship. Since those are like, as old as human civilization probably.
Prior to the industrial revolution, most private property was land and slaves (or serfs, same thing). Land supports only so many people, and land is finite, so both of those have limits on growth. And tools for any given trade were generally cheap enough that anyone of that trade would own their own set.
With the industrial revolution, suddenly the best ways to produce certain goods were wildly more expensive than what any given worker can afford, and even more wildly more productive. So there needed to be a mode of organization besides "every worker owns their own set of tools," and at the same time, factories were the first thing ever to be more valuable than owning land. So that's why "who owns private property" suddenly became an important question about 200 years ago, when "who owns land" would've been the entire discussion for most of human history.
For the political experts out there, what would happen if we stopped allowing lobbying? That seems to me like the most obvious source of corruption. Edit: ok, I should have worded better. What if we stopped allowing corporate lobbying through donations to elected officials? I understand there would be loopholes to close, but isn't this the obvious source of government corruption?
You mean, if you prohibit people (including other government decision makers) from communicating with government decision-makers about their preferences for government decisions?
Nothing good.