6 ms·

This article does not say that capitalism is a danger to society, it says that Runaway Capitalism is a danger to society. I think there is a lot of evidence out

This article does not say that capitalism is a danger to society, it says that Runaway Capitalism is a danger to society. I think there is a lot of evidence out there of the damage that too much free market causes, just as there is a lot of evidence for that damage that too much centralization in an economy causes. I don't disagree with you in some of these points, but I do disagree (as someone who thinks that the author of this article makes some good points) about being a "die hard socialist". Wanting universal healthcare, funded education, infrastructure spending, and corporate oversight does not make me a socialist. Or if we've moved so far to the right that it does make me a socialist, so be it. I'm not moving.

pdonis 9y ago
*> the damage that too much free market causes This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the term "capitalism". While many people who call themselves capitalists would like everyone else to think it means a free market, the capitalists themselves don't mean that. They mean simply that they acquire control of more capital, by hook or by crook. If they can most easily acquire control of more capital in a free market, they will support a free market. But historically, most capitalists have acquired more capital by buying monopoly privileges from the government, usually because they have failed in the free market and so turn to plan B: outlaw your competition. What seems to be new about companies like Google and Facebook is that instead of buying monopoly privileges from the government, they are acquiring them, and hence control of more capital, by exploiting bugs in the human cognitive system to get people to take actions that satisfy short term needs but have potentially disastrous long term consequences. In one sense this is still a free market, since people voluntarily choose to use Google and Facebook. But in another sense it erodes a free market, by eroding trust. Unfortunately, I don't see the buzzfeed article engaging with this aspect at all.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Looking at how the free market works, in many cases I would seriously reconsider what we mean by "voluntary" here. Just because a transaction wasn't made at gunpoint, doesn't mean it wasn't coerced, or that one party wasn't duped into it through scam/advertising.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > Just because a transaction wasn't made at gunpoint, doesn't mean it wasn't coerced, or that one party wasn't duped into it through scam/advertising. Of course coercion doesn't have to be at gunpoint. That doesn't mean "coercion" is not a reasonably well-defined term. Similarly, giving someone false information to induce them to buy something you're selling isn't a free market, it's fraud. That said, I agree that the definition of "voluntary" has to be made with care. I said basically the same thing in the second paragraph of the post you responded to.
- dgllghr 9y ago
  You make a very good point about capitalism vs. free market. I would only amend my comment to say that I think there is evidence that too much of either capitalism or free market can be damaging. For instance (and to use your definitions -- which I like -- if I understand them correctly), Comcast is the result of runaway capitalism, and the US healthcare system is too much free market. I also like your point about acquiring a monopoly by exploiting bugs in the cognitive system. I think in that sense it's a monopoly on attention and time, which results in both an economic and information monopoly. The information monopoly is especially scary to me. At least Standard Oil didn't also control what news the country read.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > the US healthcare system is too much free market. It most certainly is not. The US health care system is basically a hodgepodge of somewhat free markets and draconian government regulation, which combines the worst features of both. It is nothing like what an actual free market in health care would produce. To name just one important difference: in the US health care system, people purchasing health care services have no idea what they actually cost (because most of the cost is borne by their health insurance), and therefore have no idea whether those services are worth their cost. Yes, if you need a lifesaving operation you basically don't care what it costs; but most health care is not lifesaving operations but routine services like annual physical exams, immunizations, visits for simple ailments like a cold or flu, etc. Since people using these services don't see their actual cost, they don't know if they're getting proper value received for the cost. That means the most important mechanism of a free market, the ability of consumers to choose the best value for their money, can't work.
    - dgllghr 9y ago
      It is absolutely way too much free market. Every healthcare system that is better than ours has way less free market and way more government control.
      - pdonis 9y ago
        > It is absolutely way too much free market. Not with the correct definition of that term. You can't have a free market if the customers don't know the cost of what they're getting. > Every healthcare system that is better than ours has way less free market and way more government control. Which systems are these that are "better"? Many have lower costs, but that's not the same as "better" since many outcomes and metrics (such as wait times for services) are also worse.

pdonis 9y ago

*> the damage that too much free market causes This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the term "capitalism". While many people who call themselves capitalists would like everyone else to think it means a free market, the capitalists themselves don't mean that. They mean simply that they acquire control of more capital, by hook or by crook. If they can most easily acquire control of more capital in a free market, they will support a free market. But historically, most capitalists have acquired more capital by buying monopoly privileges from the government, usually because they have failed in the free market and so turn to plan B: outlaw your competition. What seems to be new about companies like Google and Facebook is that instead of buying monopoly privileges from the government, they are acquiring them, and hence control of more capital, by exploiting bugs in the human cognitive system to get people to take actions that satisfy short term needs but have potentially disastrous long term consequences. In one sense this is still a free market, since people voluntarily choose to use Google and Facebook. But in another sense it erodes a free market, by eroding trust. Unfortunately, I don't see the buzzfeed article engaging with this aspect at all.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Looking at how the free market works, in many cases I would seriously reconsider what we mean by "voluntary" here. Just because a transaction wasn't made at gunpoint, doesn't mean it wasn't coerced, or that one party wasn't duped into it through scam/advertising.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > Just because a transaction wasn't made at gunpoint, doesn't mean it wasn't coerced, or that one party wasn't duped into it through scam/advertising. Of course coercion doesn't have to be at gunpoint. That doesn't mean "coercion" is not a reasonably well-defined term. Similarly, giving someone false information to induce them to buy something you're selling isn't a free market, it's fraud. That said, I agree that the definition of "voluntary" has to be made with care. I said basically the same thing in the second paragraph of the post you responded to.
dgllghr 9y ago
You make a very good point about capitalism vs. free market. I would only amend my comment to say that I think there is evidence that too much of either capitalism or free market can be damaging. For instance (and to use your definitions -- which I like -- if I understand them correctly), Comcast is the result of runaway capitalism, and the US healthcare system is too much free market. I also like your point about acquiring a monopoly by exploiting bugs in the cognitive system. I think in that sense it's a monopoly on attention and time, which results in both an economic and information monopoly. The information monopoly is especially scary to me. At least Standard Oil didn't also control what news the country read.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > the US healthcare system is too much free market. It most certainly is not. The US health care system is basically a hodgepodge of somewhat free markets and draconian government regulation, which combines the worst features of both. It is nothing like what an actual free market in health care would produce. To name just one important difference: in the US health care system, people purchasing health care services have no idea what they actually cost (because most of the cost is borne by their health insurance), and therefore have no idea whether those services are worth their cost. Yes, if you need a lifesaving operation you basically don't care what it costs; but most health care is not lifesaving operations but routine services like annual physical exams, immunizations, visits for simple ailments like a cold or flu, etc. Since people using these services don't see their actual cost, they don't know if they're getting proper value received for the cost. That means the most important mechanism of a free market, the ability of consumers to choose the best value for their money, can't work.
  - dgllghr 9y ago
    It is absolutely way too much free market. Every healthcare system that is better than ours has way less free market and way more government control.
    - pdonis 9y ago
      > It is absolutely way too much free market. Not with the correct definition of that term. You can't have a free market if the customers don't know the cost of what they're getting. > Every healthcare system that is better than ours has way less free market and way more government control. Which systems are these that are "better"? Many have lower costs, but that's not the same as "better" since many outcomes and metrics (such as wait times for services) are also worse.