4 ms·

Ah yes, The Market. Everything is okay if it's dictated by The Market, right? Child slavery in the coffee industry? That's cool, working exactly as The Market

Ah yes, The Market. Everything is okay if it's dictated by The Market, right? Child slavery in the coffee industry? That's cool, working exactly as The Market should be, quite efficient even. Sex trafficking? The Market. Fucking up the planetary environment to the point where it may no longer be hospitable to human life in a few hundred years? Don't worry, that's The Market. No one needs to be forced, you just apply huge wealth differentials and get poor people to submit to slavery and life threatening circumstances like recovering rich people bodies from mountains willingly.

weberc2 9y ago
I don't know why people are so reflexively bitter when anyone mentions the market. No one in this conversation is claiming that the market solves all problems. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives, and we can admit as much without committing ourselves to any ideological platform.
- bicubic 9y ago
  Because people reflexively rationalize and justify immoral behaviors and atrocities with that's just how the market works. It's a cop out, it's a perpetuation of the status quo and a barrier to improving it. Your argument is basically equivalent to 'trump isn't perfect, but he's a whole lot better than hitler'. While true, it's merely a distraction from the conversation at hand.
  - gozur88 9y ago
    Are you trying to say offering people money to remove bodies and trash is immoral? How odd. >Your argument is basically equivalent to 'trump isn't perfect, but he's a whole lot better than hitler'. While true, it's merely a distraction from the conversation at hand. Is Trump climbing Everest?
  - mowenz 9y ago
    He never rationalized immoral behavior, unless you consider climbing Mt Everest immoral. A lot of people risk their lives every day in their jobs. It's not typically seen as immoral to do this. I agree markets have failures, and they also shouldn't justify immoral behavior--I really sincerely agree with you on that--but in those cases, that happens because of externalities. In this case the externality is the dead bodies and litter, so a market solution isn't typically bad in this context.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - weberc2 9y ago
    > Because people reflexively rationalize and justify immoral behaviors and atrocities with that's just how the market works. Maybe this happens, but it hasn't happened in this thread and it frequently doesn't happen in other threads before someone makes a big fuss about the market. And no, there's nothing immoral about compensating someone fairly to solve a dangerous problem; yes the opportunity will always be more appealing to the poor in a capitalist society, but there are no viable alternatives so I don't understand all of the complaining. > Your argument is basically equivalent to... No it's not; you simply misunderstood. My argument is that capitalism doesn't solve all problems, but no one has better ideas. Even the so-called socialist eutopias of northern Europe have a market-based economy. Again, I don't understand complaining about a problem with no candidate solutions.
- louithethrid 9y ago
  The alternatives are around for thousand of years (religions, etc.). Capitalism for 200 years and might be on its way out in a lot of run down places.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Religions are categorically different than economic systems, and capitalism is as old as the idea of private property (prehistoric), not simply 200 years old.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      There are a lot of unexamined assumptions here. Why would we assume that a prehistoric society had any particular system of economic interactions? It's not as if they wrote something we can read. In those cases in which tombs or whatever were left behind that we can examine, it typically seems that relatively rare "kings" were buried with all of the gold and other shiny rocks, and sometimes with some servants or wives for the afterlife who seem to have been ritualisticly killed for that purpose. Was that "capitalism"? Maybe!
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - weberc2 9y ago
        We know that there were merchants and people bartered to exchange goods and services. The first written records in many societies are often ledgers of royal wealth transactions. Every prominent historian believes that capitalism is the original economic system.
        jessaustin 9y ago
        "Royal wealth transactions", the foundation of capitalism! They must have competed for serfs and slaves in a voluntary market!
- jessaustin 9y ago
  This whole thread was kicked off by a greenbean HN commenter's capricious tastes. There is nothing more ideological than taste, because it can motivate any injustice. I do find it ridiculous that... their bodies are allowed to litter the landscape forever.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Yes, others' opinions can result in actions you don't like. I don't see how that is pertinent here.
    - jessaustin 9y ago
      Uhhh, I'm not complaining about dead bodies in some out-of-the-way spot that I'll never see, and suggesting that something "should be required". That was the other person. I'm fine with the bodies remaining in place. I like all the actions we're seeing in this context.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        No one suggested otherwise.

weberc2 9y ago

I don't know why people are so reflexively bitter when anyone mentions the market. No one in this conversation is claiming that the market solves all problems. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternatives, and we can admit as much without committing ourselves to any ideological platform.

bicubic 9y ago
Because people reflexively rationalize and justify immoral behaviors and atrocities with that's just how the market works. It's a cop out, it's a perpetuation of the status quo and a barrier to improving it. Your argument is basically equivalent to 'trump isn't perfect, but he's a whole lot better than hitler'. While true, it's merely a distraction from the conversation at hand.
- gozur88 9y ago
  Are you trying to say offering people money to remove bodies and trash is immoral? How odd. >Your argument is basically equivalent to 'trump isn't perfect, but he's a whole lot better than hitler'. While true, it's merely a distraction from the conversation at hand. Is Trump climbing Everest?
- mowenz 9y ago
  He never rationalized immoral behavior, unless you consider climbing Mt Everest immoral. A lot of people risk their lives every day in their jobs. It's not typically seen as immoral to do this. I agree markets have failures, and they also shouldn't justify immoral behavior--I really sincerely agree with you on that--but in those cases, that happens because of externalities. In this case the externality is the dead bodies and litter, so a market solution isn't typically bad in this context.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- weberc2 9y ago
  > Because people reflexively rationalize and justify immoral behaviors and atrocities with that's just how the market works. Maybe this happens, but it hasn't happened in this thread and it frequently doesn't happen in other threads before someone makes a big fuss about the market. And no, there's nothing immoral about compensating someone fairly to solve a dangerous problem; yes the opportunity will always be more appealing to the poor in a capitalist society, but there are no viable alternatives so I don't understand all of the complaining. > Your argument is basically equivalent to... No it's not; you simply misunderstood. My argument is that capitalism doesn't solve all problems, but no one has better ideas. Even the so-called socialist eutopias of northern Europe have a market-based economy. Again, I don't understand complaining about a problem with no candidate solutions.
louithethrid 9y ago
The alternatives are around for thousand of years (religions, etc.). Capitalism for 200 years and might be on its way out in a lot of run down places.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Religions are categorically different than economic systems, and capitalism is as old as the idea of private property (prehistoric), not simply 200 years old.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    There are a lot of unexamined assumptions here. Why would we assume that a prehistoric society had any particular system of economic interactions? It's not as if they wrote something we can read. In those cases in which tombs or whatever were left behind that we can examine, it typically seems that relatively rare "kings" were buried with all of the gold and other shiny rocks, and sometimes with some servants or wives for the afterlife who seem to have been ritualisticly killed for that purpose. Was that "capitalism"? Maybe!
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - weberc2 9y ago
      We know that there were merchants and people bartered to exchange goods and services. The first written records in many societies are often ledgers of royal wealth transactions. Every prominent historian believes that capitalism is the original economic system.
      - jessaustin 9y ago
        "Royal wealth transactions", the foundation of capitalism! They must have competed for serfs and slaves in a voluntary market!
jessaustin 9y ago
This whole thread was kicked off by a greenbean HN commenter's capricious tastes. There is nothing more ideological than taste, because it can motivate any injustice. I do find it ridiculous that... their bodies are allowed to litter the landscape forever.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Yes, others' opinions can result in actions you don't like. I don't see how that is pertinent here.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Uhhh, I'm not complaining about dead bodies in some out-of-the-way spot that I'll never see, and suggesting that something "should be required". That was the other person. I'm fine with the bodies remaining in place. I like all the actions we're seeing in this context.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      No one suggested otherwise.