3 ms·

But does that make it "net" less egalitarian than other economic systems (in practice), after accounting for all of the other advantages of capitalism? Kind of

But does that make it "net" less egalitarian than other economic systems (in practice), after accounting for all of the other advantages of capitalism? Kind of like Churchill's quote about how democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others that have been tried.

thesagan 10y ago
Maybe for now we can start walking a middle path and soften the blow of our current trajectory for a good chunk of displaced labor. Perhaps policymakers and institutional advisors can listen more to Piketty and start finding a path to stability in the medium term.
ouid 10y ago
There is no such system as "capitalism". I have not seen a definition of capitalism which was not either contradictory, or which relied on sufficiently general abstractions (utility instead of profit, social contracts and monopolies on force instead of states). The level of authoritarian control you would have to have over a society in order to prevent a system of government from forming would certainly itself qualify as a system of government. So free enterprise always generates some sort of governing actor, and any mandate that results is, by the transitive property, the result of free enterprise. Since all systems are ultimately the result of free enterprise and "rational" motives, it's hard to argue that "Capitalism" is anything but the trivial classifier, if it is well defined. I'd argue that the successful policies that Americans incorrectly attributed to the "capitalism" were actually attributable to the sort of meta-philosophy of pragmatism. Which is the philosophy of not really having a philosophy, and never letting any belief become sacred (A philosophy which we certainly do not adhere to now).
- astrange 10y ago
  Surely capitalism has to do with the existence of capitalists who don't do labor? If Walmart's shareholders couldn't extract all surplus income from the company, the Walton family wouldn't be making an entire country's worth of store owners' income for doing no work.
- geezerjay 10y ago
  > I have not seen a definition of capitalism which was not either contradictory, or which relied on sufficiently general abstractions (utility instead of profit, social contracts and monopolies on force instead of states). That's a very good point. When we see people complaining about capitalism, these critics are essentially targeted at rule of law and the recognition of a right to private property, and how states don't simply confiscate private property held by those subjectively labeled as "the rich".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
enraged_camel 10y ago
Maybe. But the reality is clear: at the current trajectory, we are headed for another French Revolution. Some billionaires knows this too: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork...

thesagan 10y ago

Maybe for now we can start walking a middle path and soften the blow of our current trajectory for a good chunk of displaced labor. Perhaps policymakers and institutional advisors can listen more to Piketty and start finding a path to stability in the medium term.

ouid 10y ago

There is no such system as "capitalism". I have not seen a definition of capitalism which was not either contradictory, or which relied on sufficiently general abstractions (utility instead of profit, social contracts and monopolies on force instead of states). The level of authoritarian control you would have to have over a society in order to prevent a system of government from forming would certainly itself qualify as a system of government. So free enterprise always generates some sort of governing actor, and any mandate that results is, by the transitive property, the result of free enterprise. Since all systems are ultimately the result of free enterprise and "rational" motives, it's hard to argue that "Capitalism" is anything but the trivial classifier, if it is well defined. I'd argue that the successful policies that Americans incorrectly attributed to the "capitalism" were actually attributable to the sort of meta-philosophy of pragmatism. Which is the philosophy of not really having a philosophy, and never letting any belief become sacred (A philosophy which we certainly do not adhere to now).

astrange 10y ago
Surely capitalism has to do with the existence of capitalists who don't do labor? If Walmart's shareholders couldn't extract all surplus income from the company, the Walton family wouldn't be making an entire country's worth of store owners' income for doing no work.
geezerjay 10y ago
> I have not seen a definition of capitalism which was not either contradictory, or which relied on sufficiently general abstractions (utility instead of profit, social contracts and monopolies on force instead of states). That's a very good point. When we see people complaining about capitalism, these critics are essentially targeted at rule of law and the recognition of a right to private property, and how states don't simply confiscate private property held by those subjectively labeled as "the rich".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

enraged_camel 10y ago

Maybe. But the reality is clear: at the current trajectory, we are headed for another French Revolution. Some billionaires knows this too: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfork...