4 ms·

>Capitalism does not have as a goal some social-utilitarian purpose. Not intrinsically, no, but it is justified by it in the face of alternatives. When you pre

by Retra 11y ago

>Capitalism does not have as a goal some social-utilitarian purpose. Not intrinsically, no, but it is justified by it in the face of alternatives. When you present people with an economic system that does have a social-utilitarian purpose, those people will select capitalism over it on the basis that capitalism is better at fulfilling that purpose. And most of the time, the argument is "capitalism self-optimizes for that purpose." Except that it self-optimizes in ways that result in central planning, monopolies, and deception. Capitalism is not convergent on social goals, it is divergent, and we have to keep pushing and prodding, regulating and deregulating in order to get anywhere near our goals. Capitalism fails every day. And we just roll up our sleeves and get to work fixing it because there is no other option. One wouldn't ague that a hole in the boat is a good thing because it keeps the crew fit trying to bail the water out. Especially when there's a whole world of other skills we'd rather have a crew be proficient at.

kenko 11y ago
> When you present people with an economic system that does have a social-utilitarian purpose, those people will select capitalism over it on the basis that capitalism is better at fulfilling that purpose. No one has ever offered people that choice, as far as I know, certainly not in a way that wouldn't in many cases be confounded by rational or irrational attachment to the present mode of social organization. (And in fact plenty of people seem to like social democracies just fine. And, for that matter, plenty of people seem to want socialist or communist modes of social organization.)
- eru 11y ago
  > (And in fact plenty of people seem to like social democracies just fine. And, for that matter, plenty of people seem to want socialist or communist modes of social organization.) Plenty of people seem to want more socialism for the country they live in, but given the choice many move to countries that have less socialism. (Ie richer countries.)
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    This is a non-sequitur. Most wealthy countries have economies that are extremely well regulated, and their effectiveness is much more conditioned to factors beyond regulation. Scandinavia has very high levels of regulation and is one of the wealthies regions in the world and the one with the highest standard of living.
- Retra 11y ago
  Well, that's why you have to argue against capitalism. If you don't present any alternatives, you won't know that they're worse than the way things are. There are important things that it doesn't do well, and we have enough information to know that.
sbuttgereit 11y ago
Capitalism requires no further justification than individuals acting to dispose of their time and property in ways that they see fit. I absolutely guarantee you that when I trade my labor and expertise with an employer or client for cash, I have no other objective that maximizing the return I get on that effort. I do not ask if my engaging in such a trade has some greater social good and I need no justification other than the trade being in my self interest. If I go to the store, I don't first ask who needs me to spend money on their products, I first ask, 'What do I need?', 'What do I want?'. I don't consume on anyone else's behave nor do I need some external justification for my own existence. Period. Capitalism does not converge on monopoly, central planning, or deception any more than any other system, and in fact it does so a lot less. Again the assertion that capitalism is broken is just false; that it doesn't meet your non-capitalist goals is correct. My cable company has monopoly-like powers not because it's run by evil capitalists, but because there's a government agency that gives them a monopoly in my area. That's not capitalism. Microsoft, "a monopoly", wasn't defeated by the government regulators, ultimately, but by better alternatives appearing on the market and their own self-inflicted irrelevance. Same arguably with IBM. That was capitalism dealing with outmoded incumbents. I see a lot of crying in these threads about how VCs or corporations seem like central planners, yet the answer being proposed seems to be engage real central planners with the legal use of force in their tool box. Indeed, the only part that I seem people really dislike about capitalism is that it's voluntary engagement... when they'd really rather force someone to act against their best interests.
- Retra 11y ago
  Telling me that you make poor, short-sighted decisions isn't an argument that capitalism doesn't require justification. It means you have low standards for an economic system. You could just as well try to argue that every word out of your mouth doesn't require justification simply because you accept it all as true without it. Well good for you. >Again the assertion that capitalism is broken is just false; that it doesn't meet your non-capitalist goals is correct ...? Just what the hell do you think I mean by 'broken' if not failing to achieve our collective goals? Just because it does what it is described to do doesn't mean it's doing what it's supposed to.

by Retra 11y ago

kenko 11y ago

> When you present people with an economic system that does have a social-utilitarian purpose, those people will select capitalism over it on the basis that capitalism is better at fulfilling that purpose. No one has ever offered people that choice, as far as I know, certainly not in a way that wouldn't in many cases be confounded by rational or irrational attachment to the present mode of social organization. (And in fact plenty of people seem to like social democracies just fine. And, for that matter, plenty of people seem to want socialist or communist modes of social organization.)

eru 11y ago
> (And in fact plenty of people seem to like social democracies just fine. And, for that matter, plenty of people seem to want socialist or communist modes of social organization.) Plenty of people seem to want more socialism for the country they live in, but given the choice many move to countries that have less socialism. (Ie richer countries.)
- Daishiman 11y ago
  This is a non-sequitur. Most wealthy countries have economies that are extremely well regulated, and their effectiveness is much more conditioned to factors beyond regulation. Scandinavia has very high levels of regulation and is one of the wealthies regions in the world and the one with the highest standard of living.
Retra 11y ago
Well, that's why you have to argue against capitalism. If you don't present any alternatives, you won't know that they're worse than the way things are. There are important things that it doesn't do well, and we have enough information to know that.

sbuttgereit 11y ago

Capitalism requires no further justification than individuals acting to dispose of their time and property in ways that they see fit. I absolutely guarantee you that when I trade my labor and expertise with an employer or client for cash, I have no other objective that maximizing the return I get on that effort. I do not ask if my engaging in such a trade has some greater social good and I need no justification other than the trade being in my self interest. If I go to the store, I don't first ask who needs me to spend money on their products, I first ask, 'What do I need?', 'What do I want?'. I don't consume on anyone else's behave nor do I need some external justification for my own existence. Period. Capitalism does not converge on monopoly, central planning, or deception any more than any other system, and in fact it does so a lot less. Again the assertion that capitalism is broken is just false; that it doesn't meet your non-capitalist goals is correct. My cable company has monopoly-like powers not because it's run by evil capitalists, but because there's a government agency that gives them a monopoly in my area. That's not capitalism. Microsoft, "a monopoly", wasn't defeated by the government regulators, ultimately, but by better alternatives appearing on the market and their own self-inflicted irrelevance. Same arguably with IBM. That was capitalism dealing with outmoded incumbents. I see a lot of crying in these threads about how VCs or corporations seem like central planners, yet the answer being proposed seems to be engage real central planners with the legal use of force in their tool box. Indeed, the only part that I seem people really dislike about capitalism is that it's voluntary engagement... when they'd really rather force someone to act against their best interests.

Retra 11y ago
Telling me that you make poor, short-sighted decisions isn't an argument that capitalism doesn't require justification. It means you have low standards for an economic system. You could just as well try to argue that every word out of your mouth doesn't require justification simply because you accept it all as true without it. Well good for you. >Again the assertion that capitalism is broken is just false; that it doesn't meet your non-capitalist goals is correct ...? Just what the hell do you think I mean by 'broken' if not failing to achieve our collective goals? Just because it does what it is described to do doesn't mean it's doing what it's supposed to.