4 ms·

I suspect people are meaning different things when they say "capitalism". Most of its detractors are against corporate cronyism, which I think almost everyone i

I suspect people are meaning different things when they say "capitalism". Most of its detractors are against corporate cronyism, which I think almost everyone is against. I also think the effects of that cronyism are unfairly attached to capitalism when, as you are alluding to, there's nothing in capitalism itself about the specifics people complain about in the status quo. Here's capitalism: a recognition of certain human rights (oriented around property) and a thesis that crowd-sourcing economic choices is better than centrally controlling them. I'd be interested in hearing someone who is against capitalism argue against either of those things.

dandare 9y ago
I think you said it better than me.
mmsimanga 9y ago
Agree 100%. To add my own take. No I haven't read Marx just my observations. Humans, rather human nature is the weakest link with whichever system is implemented. Communism seems to result in dicatorships. Cronyism exists in both communism and capitalism. I honestly think very few people once in power can resist starting to believe in their own hubris. This often results in all sorts problems including wars and cronyism. I think electoral systems that limit people to a few years in power are the only way. Same should apply to cooporate entities unless you founded the company.
- gremlinsinc 9y ago
  I don't think we need to limit execs in companies...but we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... ---this should be for all upper management... There could be variations based on job growth...new jobs added over previous years...could raise their take or give them a bonus... The end goal: Increase jobs + Increase wage lower the gap between highest/lowest wage earners in America. Also capitalism results in Oligarchy usually which isn't much better than Dictatorship... 1% own everything and control every aspect of society from the shadows... it's one big game of monopoly for them.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > ...we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... Won't they just find more loopholes to circumvent these rules? Maybe they take small salaries and get paid in transferrable, no expiration stock options. It seems like the way to level the playing field is to figure out ways to help small companies, including startups, to compete with big players.
    - gremlinsinc 9y ago
      During the New Deal era -- I believe there was something like a 90% tax on anything above 10 mill. If you taxed all earnings above a certain threshold for CEO's...then they'd be better off putting it back into their companies..but things are a bit different now adays.. Still something needs to change in 1980 it was 100-200x average employee salary.. since then average worker wages haven't gone up at all, but CEO pay has gone up to 450X the average worker... Trickle down hasn't worked...at all. The middle class is the new 'poor'.. I earn 60k as a jr developer and still money issues are tight.. I shiver to think what'd happen if I lost my job or went to a lower paying job.
boomboomsubban 9y ago
The concept that "property" is a human right makes no sense. Why should something belong only to me, and what should I need to give to society to attain it? The logical answer is "the fruit of my work," but in any practical example that is not what happens. And it is the acceptance of "property" that leads to cronyism.
- uoaei 9y ago
  Expanding on this, the crises of capitalism (people without food or homes, or being exploited for their work and given little to nothing in return) that continually arise throughout history as well as today can be seen as a symptom of this very fundamental assumption of property and its place in a society. This is what defines capitalism along with the freedom to pay (or not) a voluntary amount for any good or service. This will always lead to the concentration of wealth and if left unchecked will progress to bring far more suffering on the many to the benefit of the few than many feel comfortable accepting from an ethical standpoint. One can always propose regulations but it's a steep uphill battle to close every last loophole that people have to extract wealth from a population, usually unethically. People against capitalism are usually for something else, and they propose to change the fundamental properties of the economic system at hand to one that puts ownership directly in the hands of labor (socialism), is inherently redistributional (communism), or never supposes the need for redistribution in the first place (elimination of private property such as in pure anarchism). Those against capitalism have seen the endless failed attempts to patch the system, but the bugs are built into what makes the kernel work. Political processes are too slow to respond to the crafty and conniving, and are anyhow weak to the siren's call of having a higher economic status and so sacrifice their morals way more often than they are comfortable. Cronyism is built into the distributional properties of capitalism because of this assumption of private property.

dandare 9y ago

I think you said it better than me.

mmsimanga 9y ago

Agree 100%. To add my own take. No I haven't read Marx just my observations. Humans, rather human nature is the weakest link with whichever system is implemented. Communism seems to result in dicatorships. Cronyism exists in both communism and capitalism. I honestly think very few people once in power can resist starting to believe in their own hubris. This often results in all sorts problems including wars and cronyism. I think electoral systems that limit people to a few years in power are the only way. Same should apply to cooporate entities unless you founded the company.

gremlinsinc 9y ago
I don't think we need to limit execs in companies...but we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... ---this should be for all upper management... There could be variations based on job growth...new jobs added over previous years...could raise their take or give them a bonus... The end goal: Increase jobs + Increase wage lower the gap between highest/lowest wage earners in America. Also capitalism results in Oligarchy usually which isn't much better than Dictatorship... 1% own everything and control every aspect of society from the shadows... it's one big game of monopoly for them.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > ...we should limit pay to a multiplier of average company wages... Won't they just find more loopholes to circumvent these rules? Maybe they take small salaries and get paid in transferrable, no expiration stock options. It seems like the way to level the playing field is to figure out ways to help small companies, including startups, to compete with big players.
  - gremlinsinc 9y ago
    During the New Deal era -- I believe there was something like a 90% tax on anything above 10 mill. If you taxed all earnings above a certain threshold for CEO's...then they'd be better off putting it back into their companies..but things are a bit different now adays.. Still something needs to change in 1980 it was 100-200x average employee salary.. since then average worker wages haven't gone up at all, but CEO pay has gone up to 450X the average worker... Trickle down hasn't worked...at all. The middle class is the new 'poor'.. I earn 60k as a jr developer and still money issues are tight.. I shiver to think what'd happen if I lost my job or went to a lower paying job.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

The concept that "property" is a human right makes no sense. Why should something belong only to me, and what should I need to give to society to attain it? The logical answer is "the fruit of my work," but in any practical example that is not what happens. And it is the acceptance of "property" that leads to cronyism.

uoaei 9y ago
Expanding on this, the crises of capitalism (people without food or homes, or being exploited for their work and given little to nothing in return) that continually arise throughout history as well as today can be seen as a symptom of this very fundamental assumption of property and its place in a society. This is what defines capitalism along with the freedom to pay (or not) a voluntary amount for any good or service. This will always lead to the concentration of wealth and if left unchecked will progress to bring far more suffering on the many to the benefit of the few than many feel comfortable accepting from an ethical standpoint. One can always propose regulations but it's a steep uphill battle to close every last loophole that people have to extract wealth from a population, usually unethically. People against capitalism are usually for something else, and they propose to change the fundamental properties of the economic system at hand to one that puts ownership directly in the hands of labor (socialism), is inherently redistributional (communism), or never supposes the need for redistribution in the first place (elimination of private property such as in pure anarchism). Those against capitalism have seen the endless failed attempts to patch the system, but the bugs are built into what makes the kernel work. Political processes are too slow to respond to the crafty and conniving, and are anyhow weak to the siren's call of having a higher economic status and so sacrifice their morals way more often than they are comfortable. Cronyism is built into the distributional properties of capitalism because of this assumption of private property.