4 ms·

>Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as m

by syrrim 9y ago

>Literally, everyone profits. That's the point of capitalism, you can basically do what you want. These guys are filling potholes for themselves, they said as much. That's a selfish, capitalism-centric act Everything can be reduced to egoism if you look in close enough. The problem is that when taking an approximation capitalism is short sighted. Short term profit is taken to be a good approximation for long term profit, which in turn is taken to be a good approximation for continued sustainability. Consider: if I start a business, I probably expect it to be profitable a year from now. If I am making an ambitious startup, I might allow five or ten years to be profitable. If I am Jeff Bezos, I might allow thirty years to be profitable. All these are assumed to approximate the very long term. If my business is profitable next year, I assume I will be able to keep running it for ten years. If I've run my business for ten years, then I assume I will be able to pass it to my children. If I get my business from my parents, then I assume it will be with the family forever. Consider: I start a fishing business. I take a loan out for a boat and some nets, and pay them off by years end. Now I make a profit selling my fish. This is a success under capitalism. If I am very successful, and manage to buy a few more boats and hire some workers to man them, and am raking in money in ten years, this is considered a major success under capitalism. Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. What if by the eleventh year the fish have run out, and I go bankrupt? What if people who survived off my fish starved to death? This is no longer a success, either from a capitalist or egoist perspective. But if we use profit as a proxy for success, for the first ten years it /was/ a success. Now if we had called Bezos in to consult, he would have told us this would happen and advised us to start a different business. But most people aren't Bezos. Furthermore, capitalism doesn't encourage us to think like Bezos. If I'm raking it in for ten years, why don't I squirrel away a couple million into a savings account, and live off that as my retirement? If I do, why should I care about the business going bankrupt (limited liability FTW), and the people starving? In other words: Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars. Why doesn't he buy up a small nation, along with all the people living there to take care of him, and live the highest life imaginable until he dies (and pass it on to his children until they die)? The answer to this question sure as hell isn't because of capitalism.

mdpopescu 9y ago
> Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right? (With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)
- supreme_sublime 9y ago
  The most successful people change with the times. In this case some kind of fish farming is your best bet for long term sustainability. Just like foresters plant trees, or hunters are involved in wildlife conservation efforts. Obviously they don't always do that, but to assume you can simply run things the same exact way as your ancestors is foolish.
- syrrim 9y ago
  The "owner of the fish" is mankind in common, of course. Generally, the owner's interest is defended by the government of a given territory. But the government is not always the best steward of the long term sustainability of the land or its resources. This is for the same reason as before: it is very easy to measure short term success, but difficult to measure long term success. And even when you can predict long term success, many people will argue that you shouldn't take it into account.
  - mdpopescu 9y ago
    You're just begging for a tragedy of the commons, which is a tragedy for a reason. I am an anarchist (the capitalist sort, not the weird "we're really liberals" socialist one) and I don't want the government to defend my anything. In any case, who defends what was not in question; I was just pointing out that sustainability is not an issue in a (truly) capitalist society, because the owner of a resource can always decide to limit consumption.

by syrrim 9y ago

mdpopescu 9y ago

> Note that we have never asked whether or not I fish sustainably. That's up to the owner of the fish, who will raise the price of your license if you start destroying his capital. You are talking about capitalism, where the fish is owned by someone - right? (With the last paragraph you seem to argue against yourself. It is very disturbing.)

supreme_sublime 9y ago
The most successful people change with the times. In this case some kind of fish farming is your best bet for long term sustainability. Just like foresters plant trees, or hunters are involved in wildlife conservation efforts. Obviously they don't always do that, but to assume you can simply run things the same exact way as your ancestors is foolish.
syrrim 9y ago
The "owner of the fish" is mankind in common, of course. Generally, the owner's interest is defended by the government of a given territory. But the government is not always the best steward of the long term sustainability of the land or its resources. This is for the same reason as before: it is very easy to measure short term success, but difficult to measure long term success. And even when you can predict long term success, many people will argue that you shouldn't take it into account.
- mdpopescu 9y ago
  You're just begging for a tragedy of the commons, which is a tragedy for a reason. I am an anarchist (the capitalist sort, not the weird "we're really liberals" socialist one) and I don't want the government to defend my anything. In any case, who defends what was not in question; I was just pointing out that sustainability is not an issue in a (truly) capitalist society, because the owner of a resource can always decide to limit consumption.