4 ms·

>The mechanics of capitalism are fundamentally exploitative No it's not. The mechanics are capitalism are fundamentally about mutual benefit. I give you money

>The mechanics of capitalism are fundamentally exploitative No it's not. The mechanics are capitalism are fundamentally about mutual benefit. I give you money because having your product is worth more to me than having the money. You give me the product because having the money is worth more to you than having the product. Mutually beneficial exchange is the cornerstone of capitalism. At the end of the transaction, we are both better off. That's not to say that there's not problems around monopoly and violence, but the latter is the failure of the state, not of the market. And monopoly is not exclusive to capitalism. Under alternative systems, everything is controlled by a monopoly (the state).

bertiewhykovich 10y ago
That's a lovely notion, but even the most cursory clear-eyed look around you should pretty conclusively demonstrate that it's not true.
sbov 10y ago
I assume you disagree with the statements "it's just business" and "duty to maximize shareholder value" then.
- tomcam 10y ago
  It all depends on context. In some cases I do, and in some cases I don't. However, one of the reasons I run my own business is to avoid compromises like that when possible.
bbctol 10y ago
Mutually beneficial exchanges can still be exploitative. You give me money, I don't shoot you, we're both better off. Whether or not capitalism is "fundamentally" exploitative depends a lot on definitions, but the issue of violence isn't limited to state actors, and the market can definitely coerce people.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "You give me money, I don't shoot you" That's not capitalism by any definition. That's extortion and it was a well known practice thousands of years before we invented (or at least understood) capitalism. I'd argue capitalism is not even an ideology, it's just a simple understanding of comparative value and how to go beyond zero-sum economics.
  - bbctol 10y ago
    Oh, I know; my point was that the principle of mutually beneficial exchanges doesn't preclude an overall negative outcome. I don't know if capitalism is an ideology, but it certainly stems from a certain ideological framework (it's hard to have capitalism without belief in property.)
    - x1798DE 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure that by definition it does prevent a negative outcome, since "mutually beneficial" generally means that each person is better off than before the trade, meaning there are positive payoffs on both sides - I'm not sure where exactly you get a negative from there. In the example of "give me what I want or I'll shoot you", you could argue that "X prevents Y from being shot" and "Y gives X what he wants" is a benefit for both sides, but that ignores the first part, "X puts Y in a position where he is going to be shot" is not mutually beneficial, so the salient part of the example (the threat) is not actually an example of mutually beneficial exchange.
      - bbctol 10y ago
        Again, my point was that even if every exchange, in and of itself, is mutually beneficial, the overall society can still be unpleasant. But it should also be noted that mutually beneficial exchanges do not prevent negative results even directly, but merely improve the outcomes for those who are agreeing to the transaction; two parties can agree to an exchange that leaves them both better off than they were before, but harms a third party. Which doesn't even bring up that these exchanges are based on perceived benefit...
perakojotgenije 10y ago
>I give you money because having your product is worth more to me than having the money. You give me the product because having the money is worth more to you than having the product That is just trade, not capitalism. You are mixing them.
Koshkin 10y ago
> ...mutual benefit. I give you money... Actually, it's like this: I give you money because I want to make a profit and become richer. You work in order to survive.
- bertiewhykovich 10y ago
  This is empirically correct.

bertiewhykovich 10y ago

That's a lovely notion, but even the most cursory clear-eyed look around you should pretty conclusively demonstrate that it's not true.

sbov 10y ago

I assume you disagree with the statements "it's just business" and "duty to maximize shareholder value" then.

tomcam 10y ago
It all depends on context. In some cases I do, and in some cases I don't. However, one of the reasons I run my own business is to avoid compromises like that when possible.

bbctol 10y ago

Mutually beneficial exchanges can still be exploitative. You give me money, I don't shoot you, we're both better off. Whether or not capitalism is "fundamentally" exploitative depends a lot on definitions, but the issue of violence isn't limited to state actors, and the market can definitely coerce people.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"You give me money, I don't shoot you" That's not capitalism by any definition. That's extortion and it was a well known practice thousands of years before we invented (or at least understood) capitalism. I'd argue capitalism is not even an ideology, it's just a simple understanding of comparative value and how to go beyond zero-sum economics.
- bbctol 10y ago
  Oh, I know; my point was that the principle of mutually beneficial exchanges doesn't preclude an overall negative outcome. I don't know if capitalism is an ideology, but it certainly stems from a certain ideological framework (it's hard to have capitalism without belief in property.)
  - x1798DE 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure that by definition it does prevent a negative outcome, since "mutually beneficial" generally means that each person is better off than before the trade, meaning there are positive payoffs on both sides - I'm not sure where exactly you get a negative from there. In the example of "give me what I want or I'll shoot you", you could argue that "X prevents Y from being shot" and "Y gives X what he wants" is a benefit for both sides, but that ignores the first part, "X puts Y in a position where he is going to be shot" is not mutually beneficial, so the salient part of the example (the threat) is not actually an example of mutually beneficial exchange.
    - bbctol 10y ago
      Again, my point was that even if every exchange, in and of itself, is mutually beneficial, the overall society can still be unpleasant. But it should also be noted that mutually beneficial exchanges do not prevent negative results even directly, but merely improve the outcomes for those who are agreeing to the transaction; two parties can agree to an exchange that leaves them both better off than they were before, but harms a third party. Which doesn't even bring up that these exchanges are based on perceived benefit...

perakojotgenije 10y ago

>I give you money because having your product is worth more to me than having the money. You give me the product because having the money is worth more to you than having the product That is just trade, not capitalism. You are mixing them.

Koshkin 10y ago

> ...mutual benefit. I give you money... Actually, it's like this: I give you money because I want to make a profit and become richer. You work in order to survive.

bertiewhykovich 10y ago
This is empirically correct.