5 ms·

"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

"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...
jackmott 10y ago
No true scotsman fallacy, activate.

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...

jackmott 10y ago

No true scotsman fallacy, activate.