Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

journals.aom.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 261 posts

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#201

Post by vannevar »

pram wrote: post #191
vannevar wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does the idea that capitalism has co-existed with civilization perturb you? Not criticizing, just honestly curious.

Not what I said at all lol

It looks like what you said:

>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.

It seems like you want another definition of capitalism that would reflect a more recent development of it. Again, I'm not criticizing at all, just wondering what the perturbing aspect is.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#202

Post by dragonwriter »

jtolmar wrote: post #199
pram wrote: post #126

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.

Of those, private property - the Marxist definition of it, at least - is mostly new. For anyone not familiar, that definition of "private property" is something like productive assets used by other people for the profit of the owner, and "personal property" is like, your clothes or your TV. It's a little artificial, and fuzzy in some cases (but not that fuzzy, it's a useful way to look at society). Prior to the indus…

> Of those, private property - the Marxist definition of it, at least - is mostly new.

It is newly independently significant, not new.

> Prior to the industrial revolution, most private property was land and slaves

No, “private property” in the Marxist sense excludes both land and slaves, but most private property was generally held in the same hands that held land and, if not actual slaves in name, power over subject people equivalent to that of government (and often recognized as governmental authority) as a personal (though often not freely transferrable) property right.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#203

Post by netcan »

vannevar wrote: post #140
pram wrote: post #126

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.

(I'm the GP, not P)

.. It perturbs me because it's usually a (imo) dirty rhetorical trick. The argument never really sticks to a "just markets & property" definition of capitalism. The way it usually works is: (step 1) define capitalism in a way that applies to most societies at most times; (step 2) proceed with the rest of the argument with a much more specific definition.

In this case, what the paper actually means by capitalism isn't just "Markets & Property," even though they do define things this way. What they actually mean by capitalism is privatisation and other major policies adopted post Yugoslav and Soviet dissolution. None of the paper makes sense otherwise.

If we're discussing history (the original context for the term "capitalism") the uber-broad definition doesn't work either. Capitalism has something to do with the industrial era, the ascendancy of merchants over medieval aristocracies & such. No one actually sticks to a definition of capitalism where the early stock markets of Amsterdam & London are not more capitalistic than feudal systems or whatnot.

It's just disingenuous, basically. If that's the definition of capitalism, there's not much to discuss. Most systems are capitalism. It's also ahistorical, since it ignore most usages of the term.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#204

Post by netcan »

vannevar wrote: post #201
pram wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what I said at all lol

It looks like what you said: >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. It seems like you want another definition of capitalism that would reflect a more recent development of it. Again, I'm not criticizing at all, just wondering what the perturbing aspect is.

Capitalism, as the term has been most over 200 years of its existence, refers to something that emerges in the industrial era.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#205

Post by Devasta »

swader999 wrote: post #53

Capitalism without fair competition is not capitalism. There needs to be rules and regulation to have a level field. Huge barriers to entry, monopoly, oligarchy and so on all pervert capitalism. Currently, it's far far away from a good place.

How is capitalism without competition not capitalism? The capitalist is served very well by it, earning huge piles of money.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#206

Post by bernawil »

mrkentutbabi wrote: post #66

Is wealth inequality necessarily bad? Genuine question here.

Commerce, capitalism, etc. nothing works under extreme wealth inequality, prices just don't matter then. When someone has too much wealth compared to the others, it doens't even make sense to trade when the rest can only sway your wealth so little.

So when arguing about inequality, we're actually arguing just how much inequality exactly the system can work with.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#207

Post by 6510 »

refurb wrote: post #108
vlunkr wrote: post #81

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?

Lobbying is just communicating your desires to your elected representative. If we stopped it, we stop democracy?

You could compare it to a messaging protocol. If the message is attempting remote code execution you would want to remove the possibility to do so and/or [perhaps] drop the message.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#208

Post by vannevar »

simonh wrote: post #196
vannevar wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right but it's not capitalism as such that does that. It's the regulatory, legal and political systems that do it. Those are what need to be reformed, not the basic freedoms of association and ownership that underly capitalism. 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…

>Right but it's not capitalism as such that does that.

I assume by "that", you mean the concentration of wealth. But capitalism does concentrate wealth as a mathematical inevitability, because of the strong feedback loop between capital and income. The old saying, the rich get richer is literally true: having money makes it easier to make more money. It's intrinsic to the system. On an individual level, it's worldwide (ie, the disparity between individuals is increasing, though the disparity between nations is decreasing; see https://unu.edu/news/news/global-income-inequality-up-or-dow...).

That doesn't mean we should throw the whole thing out, but it does mean we can't just take our hands off the wheel and let it run laissez faire.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#209

Post by 6510 »

newsclues wrote: post #133
refurb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbying is just communicating your desires to your elected representative. If we stopped it, we stop democracy?

If that were true(lobbying is just communicating), people and corporations would write a letter rather than hire a lobbyist.

A letter would work too if bribes are paid.

Re: Blame Cronyism, Not Capitalism

#210

Post by 6510 »

zipswitch wrote: post #115
justinmchase wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Plato's ideal republic the lawmakers, or protectors, were instead removed from society living in a parallel society dedicated to service. Therefore they would be incorruptable, or difficult to corrupt.

Which leads to Nassim Taleb's "no skin in the game" problem.

Or in the case of robot overlords no skin at all.
Post reply on HN