4 ms·

> the real core tenet of capitalism is specialization That sounds like someone living in a world where "capitalism" is the dominant propaganda meme. Capitalism

> the real core tenet of capitalism is specialization That sounds like someone living in a world where "capitalism" is the dominant propaganda meme. Capitalism isn't based on specialization, it's based on private ownership of core resources and infrastructure. All other economic systems have specialization. You're just noticing that specialization is key to human prosperity and wording your point within the baseless assumption that capitalism is synonymous with prosperity or something.

seibelj 9y ago
Yes, private property is the foundation of capitalism. In my opinion, freedom is the true benefit of capitalism, and private property is what allows freedom. In a system where one is not allowed to own property (land, assets, capital, etc.), one is not truly free. And the freedom to discover unmet business needs, arbitrage, etc. is not a problem but a feature, as it drives investment and entrepreneurship. And capitalism is synonymous with prosperity. Capitalism is freedom, and freedom is what propels the world forward.
- sitkack 9y ago
  Thanks for propagating the HN Gestalt.
  - seibelj 9y ago
    I am a free market capitalist, sorry if that offends you, I'm happy you can't report me to a government official for my views and have me arrested.
    - classybull 9y ago
      You seem to conflate your economic systems with your political systems. I recommend some independent study in political economy.
      - orthecreedence 9y ago
        Why bother with pesky political systems when capitalism will just self-organize everything for us perfectly??? NOW WITH 100% MORE FREEDOM
        sitkack 9y ago
        Let the market decide the freedom you can afford.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  I'm sorry, but earnest question: Do you really believe this in a world that has more than enough resources to take care of its population, however, millions have no access to clean water, basic nutrition or healthcare; even while others control resources sufficient to cover their own needs by several orders of magnitude?
  - seibelj 9y ago
    If you choose to redistribute wealth in a way that immediately alleviates all of those issues, you kill the golden goose (private industry). Similarly, if you just give food, shoes, supplies, etc. to poor people everywhere, you screw with the local economy and destroy businesses. For example, if a guy is selling chickens, and all of a sudden a million chickens are donated to everyone, that man can no longer sell chickens. Also, you can't simply give billions of dollars to foreign governments and have them build infrastructure, provide clean water, etc. They will squander and steal a large amount of it, as has happened repeatedly. So yes, I agree that it's sad that in a world of abundance, people are starving and dying. But you need to give it time, align incentives, and let prosperity continue to raise the world out of poverty, as it has done in so many countries that are adopting market-based systems. China and India, despite their faults, have adopted systems that embrace the market more than their socialist / communist pasts, and have raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. It's a utopian belief that if we could just get everyone on board, we could instantly solve everyone's problems. The correct solution is to remove barriers to free enterprise, allow people to gain and re-invest their wealth, and over time people will be raised out of poverty world-wide.
    - orthecreedence 9y ago
      You're correct that amassing all the wealth in the world, divvying it up equally, and passing it out to everyone won't work. But I think your view of letting free enterprise run rampant is the exact opposite of that idea, and will work just as well at "lifting" those who are in a more desperate situation. Not only does free enterprise destroy cultures and local economies just as badly as your example, it tends to poison the planet we live on at a rate we just can't ignore anymore. Not to mention, our economy is growth-based. Most of our growth comes from exploitation of other countries...pumping our wealth into their country (arbitrage, as another comment put it). Eventually, when those countries are no longer third-world, and a hamburger there costs $10 like it does here, the companies exploiting the cheap labor there move to the next third-world shithole. What happens when all the third-world shitholes are gone, though? Our growth economy runs out of fuel to grow. On top of this, as populations find equilibrium with our amount of resources (and resource distribution mechanisms) there will be even less people to exploit at our current rate of growth. I believe, in the next 50-100 years, our growth economy will collapse because the people driving it believe that growth is infinite, and the resources that drive it (developing nations/growing populations and all the resources that they require) are also infinite. The entire thing is based on an equation that doesn't balance. We're scrambling to get to the top of a mountain that will crumble. Free enterprise won't solve this, in fact, it's only accelerating the need to find an economic system based on equilibrium, not growth. Whether that means private/public/mixed ownership, socialism/UBI/etc, we need to start thinking now about how to fix this.
- booleandilemma 9y ago
  I'm all for capitalism but that last paragraph was cringey. I think it's a mistake to consider capitalism as this perfect, ideal way of life. A lot of people, too many people, get screwed under capitalism. You're not free when you're working 2 jobs 6 days a week. Not by my definition of freedom. And this is the reality for a lot of people out there. I believe there is a better system that we haven't found yet and we should be looking at how we can eventually transcend capitalism when we don't need it anymore. Automation/AI is a step in the right direction.
  - d0lph 9y ago
    I think you'd have a hard time finding a political system that hasn't screwed people.
- cryoshon 9y ago
  any king or pauper from the year zero could tell you that private property predated capitalism and is a totally independent concept.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    Private property is not the point of what defines capitalism. Private ownership of core resources and means-of-production are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
wsy 9y ago
While it is true that all economic systems have specialization, so far capitalism seems to be most efficient in self-organizing it. The reason is explained before: wherever specialization yields a high margin, people jump into that gap. As the gap fills, the margin gets lower over time and everybody pays lower prices for the same goods. There might be other economic systems that also foster this kind of self-optimization, and don't have the negative effects caused by capitalism, but we haven't seen them yet.
- narrator 9y ago
  Capitalism is also good at building the right capital. Capital in this case refers to intellectual and physical goods that produce other goods, such as machine tools, construction equipment, metallurgical processes or freight railroads for example. Building a lot of the wrong capital and using it inefficiently is a problem that has always plagued centrally planned economies.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    Capitalism isn't defined as "non-centrally-planned economy", it's specifically privately-owned capital. If that private ownership is concentrated enough, then lots of things are pretty centrally planned. And non-capitalist economies include ones that aren't centrally-planned.

seibelj 9y ago

Yes, private property is the foundation of capitalism. In my opinion, freedom is the true benefit of capitalism, and private property is what allows freedom. In a system where one is not allowed to own property (land, assets, capital, etc.), one is not truly free. And the freedom to discover unmet business needs, arbitrage, etc. is not a problem but a feature, as it drives investment and entrepreneurship. And capitalism is synonymous with prosperity. Capitalism is freedom, and freedom is what propels the world forward.

sitkack 9y ago
Thanks for propagating the HN Gestalt.
- seibelj 9y ago
  I am a free market capitalist, sorry if that offends you, I'm happy you can't report me to a government official for my views and have me arrested.
  - classybull 9y ago
    You seem to conflate your economic systems with your political systems. I recommend some independent study in political economy.
    - orthecreedence 9y ago
      Why bother with pesky political systems when capitalism will just self-organize everything for us perfectly??? NOW WITH 100% MORE FREEDOM
      - sitkack 9y ago
        Let the market decide the freedom you can afford.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
I'm sorry, but earnest question: Do you really believe this in a world that has more than enough resources to take care of its population, however, millions have no access to clean water, basic nutrition or healthcare; even while others control resources sufficient to cover their own needs by several orders of magnitude?
- seibelj 9y ago
  If you choose to redistribute wealth in a way that immediately alleviates all of those issues, you kill the golden goose (private industry). Similarly, if you just give food, shoes, supplies, etc. to poor people everywhere, you screw with the local economy and destroy businesses. For example, if a guy is selling chickens, and all of a sudden a million chickens are donated to everyone, that man can no longer sell chickens. Also, you can't simply give billions of dollars to foreign governments and have them build infrastructure, provide clean water, etc. They will squander and steal a large amount of it, as has happened repeatedly. So yes, I agree that it's sad that in a world of abundance, people are starving and dying. But you need to give it time, align incentives, and let prosperity continue to raise the world out of poverty, as it has done in so many countries that are adopting market-based systems. China and India, despite their faults, have adopted systems that embrace the market more than their socialist / communist pasts, and have raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. It's a utopian belief that if we could just get everyone on board, we could instantly solve everyone's problems. The correct solution is to remove barriers to free enterprise, allow people to gain and re-invest their wealth, and over time people will be raised out of poverty world-wide.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    You're correct that amassing all the wealth in the world, divvying it up equally, and passing it out to everyone won't work. But I think your view of letting free enterprise run rampant is the exact opposite of that idea, and will work just as well at "lifting" those who are in a more desperate situation. Not only does free enterprise destroy cultures and local economies just as badly as your example, it tends to poison the planet we live on at a rate we just can't ignore anymore. Not to mention, our economy is growth-based. Most of our growth comes from exploitation of other countries...pumping our wealth into their country (arbitrage, as another comment put it). Eventually, when those countries are no longer third-world, and a hamburger there costs $10 like it does here, the companies exploiting the cheap labor there move to the next third-world shithole. What happens when all the third-world shitholes are gone, though? Our growth economy runs out of fuel to grow. On top of this, as populations find equilibrium with our amount of resources (and resource distribution mechanisms) there will be even less people to exploit at our current rate of growth. I believe, in the next 50-100 years, our growth economy will collapse because the people driving it believe that growth is infinite, and the resources that drive it (developing nations/growing populations and all the resources that they require) are also infinite. The entire thing is based on an equation that doesn't balance. We're scrambling to get to the top of a mountain that will crumble. Free enterprise won't solve this, in fact, it's only accelerating the need to find an economic system based on equilibrium, not growth. Whether that means private/public/mixed ownership, socialism/UBI/etc, we need to start thinking now about how to fix this.
booleandilemma 9y ago
I'm all for capitalism but that last paragraph was cringey. I think it's a mistake to consider capitalism as this perfect, ideal way of life. A lot of people, too many people, get screwed under capitalism. You're not free when you're working 2 jobs 6 days a week. Not by my definition of freedom. And this is the reality for a lot of people out there. I believe there is a better system that we haven't found yet and we should be looking at how we can eventually transcend capitalism when we don't need it anymore. Automation/AI is a step in the right direction.
- d0lph 9y ago
  I think you'd have a hard time finding a political system that hasn't screwed people.
cryoshon 9y ago
any king or pauper from the year zero could tell you that private property predated capitalism and is a totally independent concept.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  Private property is not the point of what defines capitalism. Private ownership of core resources and means-of-production are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

wsy 9y ago

While it is true that all economic systems have specialization, so far capitalism seems to be most efficient in self-organizing it. The reason is explained before: wherever specialization yields a high margin, people jump into that gap. As the gap fills, the margin gets lower over time and everybody pays lower prices for the same goods. There might be other economic systems that also foster this kind of self-optimization, and don't have the negative effects caused by capitalism, but we haven't seen them yet.

narrator 9y ago
Capitalism is also good at building the right capital. Capital in this case refers to intellectual and physical goods that produce other goods, such as machine tools, construction equipment, metallurgical processes or freight railroads for example. Building a lot of the wrong capital and using it inefficiently is a problem that has always plagued centrally planned economies.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  Capitalism isn't defined as "non-centrally-planned economy", it's specifically privately-owned capital. If that private ownership is concentrated enough, then lots of things are pretty centrally planned. And non-capitalist economies include ones that aren't centrally-planned.