3 ms·

Asking people who are not thriving in a capitalistic economy (as numerous as they may be) what they think about capitalism is like asking the weakest sheep what

Asking people who are not thriving in a capitalistic economy (as numerous as they may be) what they think about capitalism is like asking the weakest sheep what they think about survival of the fittest. Of course they're going to associate the idea with hardship and injustice. No surprise there. But I feel it, and I feel for everyone affected by it (and I'm not implying that those people are necessarily weak, by the way). Unfortunately, there will always exist some degree of disparity in resources and prosperity in society (at least, any "free" society), and a "fair" system is just one that provides opportunities for everyone; it doesn't give to those who aren't deserving (and of course, the definition of "deserving" is very much up for debate). But if those who do contribute more to society aren't rewarded any more than those who don't, then fairness ceases to exist. What many people (especially the younger generation) fail to recognize is that capitalism is both the problem and the solution here. The real problem is, our current form of capitalism functions nothing like true "free market" capitalism. In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of tuition?). Every industry and business would have to prove their value to the masses (rather than certain players getting preferential treatment from government subsidies); otherwise our dollars would be voted elsewhere. As long as the government could ensure a level of transparency, we'd all get what we pay for, and of course, charities would still be able to do tremendous good in giving aid to the less fortunate (those who may be down on their luck, but not deadbeats). I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market. When I hear someone blaming capitalism for their economic hardships, I like to imagine that person years in the future, now successful, having earned their way to a decent living. I imagine telling that person "ok, congratulations, but you didn't believe in capitalism, so give me all your wealth - I promise I'll look after it". And at that point, I can't imagine any response other than a resounding string of 4-letter words telling me to get lost.

323454 10y ago
I think you're deluding yourself, and your arguments have the same tone as defenders of communism when they say "oh of course communism didn't work in the USSR, but that's because they werent doing it properly!" Capitalism in 2016 is a hell of a lot less broken than capitalism in 1916 or 1816 when many markets were much less regulated. The answer is not "freer markets", but I agree with you that it's also not just more regulation. Instead, we need to be able to do more with less regulation, to have more efficient rules that make the economic game better fulfill its purpose of providing for everyone's needs and encouraging useful behaviours.
kalleboo 10y ago
> I like to imagine that person years in the future, now successful, having earned their way to a decent living Although looking at the social mobility charts, they're actually far more likely to be even more poor. But hey, keep imagining you're right! I do agree that there's lots of horrible legislation out there. One problem I see in the US legislation is the schizophrenia in trying to maintain the illusion of a free market. All your politicians want to say they're pro-free market. But nobody aside from some of the more deluded Libertarians is going to accept poor people being turned away from the ER, or pharmaceutical companies being allowed to sell tainted drugs. So the legislation keeps creeping in, but without accepting that maybe this one sector isn't really suited to keeping up the "free market" charade?
badsock 10y ago
What I don't like about this argument is that it vastly downplays corporations' ability to form monopolies and cartels in the absence of government programs to abuse. They are perfectly capable of using whatever means are at hand. We've had periods of much less-fettered capitalism. It did not result in greater equality, in fact it had the opposite effect. In regards to your last paragraph, you should realize that some people support redistribution not because they want rich people to give them money, but because they understand that capitalism is a flawed tool for tallying contribution to society, and a well-functioning economy needs a rebalancing hand. Likewise there are lots of people, capitalists even, who have arrived at your "success" scenario and yet still don't share your social darwinist views.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>What I don't like about this argument is that it vastly downplays corporations' ability to form monopolies and cartels in the absence of government programs to abuse. They are perfectly capable of using whatever means are at hand. Exactly. We have seen again and again that lack of government intervention in the economy does not lead to a "free market." It leads to monopolies and cartels.
muhfuhkuh 10y ago
>In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of tuition?) Government subsidies, grants and scholarships were absolutely available in massive supply even 20 years ago, when annual college tuition for in-state public schools averaged about 10k (including room & board and books). The student loans didn't make it more expensive; the influx of students did. It's not the kids fault they were sold a bill of goods by their boomer parents, the media, and even employers about college being the only way to avoid fast food or ditch digging as a career. >I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market. Then, why is life-saving medicine that USED to be relatively cheap so needlessly expensive? That wasn't government regulation. Turing pharma with Daraprim, KV pharma with Makena, then doxycycline, etc., the list goes on. I think this is one place the government should have (and could have, actually) stepped in but didn't. The invisible hand is so darn arbitrary. Makes computers and flat-screens so dern cheap, but something that can save our life? Nah. Go figure! Another example. I don't recall diamonds being anything but compressed coal. I don't think it's regulated much if at all (I don't recall the GIA being a government agency). There is no regulated market for it like there is gold and other precious metals. Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?
- tnecniv 10y ago
  > Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why? People want them and are willing to pay the offered price for them. Just like truffles that cost $20 for shavings at a fancy restaurant.

323454 10y ago

I think you're deluding yourself, and your arguments have the same tone as defenders of communism when they say "oh of course communism didn't work in the USSR, but that's because they werent doing it properly!" Capitalism in 2016 is a hell of a lot less broken than capitalism in 1916 or 1816 when many markets were much less regulated. The answer is not "freer markets", but I agree with you that it's also not just more regulation. Instead, we need to be able to do more with less regulation, to have more efficient rules that make the economic game better fulfill its purpose of providing for everyone's needs and encouraging useful behaviours.

kalleboo 10y ago

> I like to imagine that person years in the future, now successful, having earned their way to a decent living Although looking at the social mobility charts, they're actually far more likely to be even more poor. But hey, keep imagining you're right! I do agree that there's lots of horrible legislation out there. One problem I see in the US legislation is the schizophrenia in trying to maintain the illusion of a free market. All your politicians want to say they're pro-free market. But nobody aside from some of the more deluded Libertarians is going to accept poor people being turned away from the ER, or pharmaceutical companies being allowed to sell tainted drugs. So the legislation keeps creeping in, but without accepting that maybe this one sector isn't really suited to keeping up the "free market" charade?

badsock 10y ago

What I don't like about this argument is that it vastly downplays corporations' ability to form monopolies and cartels in the absence of government programs to abuse. They are perfectly capable of using whatever means are at hand. We've had periods of much less-fettered capitalism. It did not result in greater equality, in fact it had the opposite effect. In regards to your last paragraph, you should realize that some people support redistribution not because they want rich people to give them money, but because they understand that capitalism is a flawed tool for tallying contribution to society, and a well-functioning economy needs a rebalancing hand. Likewise there are lots of people, capitalists even, who have arrived at your "success" scenario and yet still don't share your social darwinist views.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>What I don't like about this argument is that it vastly downplays corporations' ability to form monopolies and cartels in the absence of government programs to abuse. They are perfectly capable of using whatever means are at hand. Exactly. We have seen again and again that lack of government intervention in the economy does not lead to a "free market." It leads to monopolies and cartels.

muhfuhkuh 10y ago

>In a free market, education would be cheaper (you think the government subsidies, grants, scholarships, etc are doing anything but raise the price of tuition?) Government subsidies, grants and scholarships were absolutely available in massive supply even 20 years ago, when annual college tuition for in-state public schools averaged about 10k (including room & board and books). The student loans didn't make it more expensive; the influx of students did. It's not the kids fault they were sold a bill of goods by their boomer parents, the media, and even employers about college being the only way to avoid fast food or ditch digging as a career. >I truly believe that America's economic situation would be improved by those two things: increased transparency, and more freedom in the market. Then, why is life-saving medicine that USED to be relatively cheap so needlessly expensive? That wasn't government regulation. Turing pharma with Daraprim, KV pharma with Makena, then doxycycline, etc., the list goes on. I think this is one place the government should have (and could have, actually) stepped in but didn't. The invisible hand is so darn arbitrary. Makes computers and flat-screens so dern cheap, but something that can save our life? Nah. Go figure! Another example. I don't recall diamonds being anything but compressed coal. I don't think it's regulated much if at all (I don't recall the GIA being a government agency). There is no regulated market for it like there is gold and other precious metals. Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why?

tnecniv 10y ago
> Yet, I'll be damned if it isn't expensive as hell. Why? People want them and are willing to pay the offered price for them. Just like truffles that cost $20 for shavings at a fancy restaurant.