5 ms·
You are free to acquire capital much as both beggars and kings are free to live under bridges. Acquiring capital isn't easy. Why should it be?
by ArkyBeagle 11y ago
You are free to acquire capital much as both beggars and kings are free to live under bridges. Acquiring capital isn't easy. Why should it be?
- VMG 11y agoI know, I'm challenging the idea of "capitalism != free market". In my opinion it is.
- catnaroek 11y ago"Free market" is a technical term in economics - for a very idealized situation that hardly ever occurs in practice, and just happens to be simple to analyze. Its meaning isn't a matter of opinion.
- VMG 11y agoInteresting. Does the technical definition of the term allow for a "free market" where there are restrictions on the accumulation of capital?
- oarsinsync 11y agoYes. Markets are a method of exchange, and free markets have a choice of producers by consumers and competition. Restrictions (or lack thereof) on capital accumulation are not relevant.
- catnaroek 11y agoI don't see how the state could implement restrictions on capital accumulation, without regulating certain markets and industries (primarily the financial industry).
- bad_user 11y agoFor a market to exist, it must facilitate trading of things that have value. When value is lost and a market no longer possible due to the environment, is that really a restriction? In other words, if the state placed restrictions on capital accumulation, then there wouldn't be a need to restrict the "financial industry" as such a thing would cease to exist. Just like how a fish market wouldn't be possible without any fish left on earth.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- catnaroek 11y agoI don't think so. But capitalism can exist without free markets, e.g., post-WWII Japan and South Korea are very protectionist capitalist countries.
- ArkyBeagle 11y agoIn the span between the Civil War and WWI, so was the US.