3 ms·

For anyone who doesn't have time to read the whole article, the conclusion is pretty much "No, as long as we have a strong social safety net." IE capitalism wi

For anyone who doesn't have time to read the whole article, the conclusion is pretty much "No, as long as we have a strong social safety net." IE capitalism with some elements of socialism to preserve individual liberties and dignities when economies slow down. Which sounds reasonable to me as a capitalist but also as a human being.

Analemma_ 8y ago
> For anyone who doesn't have time to read the whole article, the conclusion is pretty much "No, as long as we have a strong social safety net." Well, then the answer is "yes". The whole issue being debated here is whether capitalism inevitably leads to a concentration of wealth which can then be leveraged into political power to create more concentration of wealth in a positive feedback cycle. The theory goes that after a couple iterations of that cycle, the wealthy will dismantle the social safety net entirely so they can cut their taxes. Which is exactly what we're seeing right now.
- gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
  1) When competition is allowed to enter the market, we eventually have an equilibrium where the right number of competitors is producing a good or a service at the best price and highest quality possible. That is capitalism. When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself. 2) The wealthy cutting their taxes does not necessarily mean the social safety net has to be dismantled. You can have lower taxes and a high safety net. It all depends on what your tax revenue is and where you spend it. The US has trillions in tax revenue coming in every year, and yet we had something like 60 billion dollars of medicare fraud in a single year, exorbitant spending on useless military ventures, etc. If we slashed wasteful spending and fraudulent activities at the governmental level, we could afford a lot more safety net with less tax revenue. The issue is that cronyism in government results in government only ever being satisfied with getting by with more funding and more budget, and never less.
  - spiralx 8y ago
    > When competition is allowed to enter the market, we eventually have an equilibrium where the right number of competitors is producing a good or a service at the best price and highest quality possible. That is capitalism. No, that's a highly theoretical model that doesn't exist in the real world. > When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself. No True Capitalism eh? Why would a capitalist not use their capital in whichever fashion would lead to gaining even more wealth? Whether that be monopoly, collusion, or political power?
    - gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
      It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become obfuscated by government regulation and intervention. Example: Entering the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generic medicines in order to steal market share from the big pharmaceuticals is hard because of government red-tape. Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. Some capitalists are known to use their capital for expensive philanthropic ventures or to support candidates who want to raise taxes. Why did you ignore my comment about tax revenue and spending, by the way? That was the meat of the post.
      - spiralx 8y ago
        > Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue. > It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become obfuscated by government regulation and intervention. Example: Entering the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generic medicines in order to steal market share from the big pharmaceuticals is hard because of government red-tape. Yes, regulations will interfere with the unfettered pursuit of profit, but that's by intent. > Why did you ignore my comment about tax revenue and spending, by the way? That was the meat of the post. Because it didn't really seem to make much of a point. Yes government spending priorities could be different and I'm sure there's wastage that could be lessened - although I'd guess less than you think. Cronyism exists in any organisation of more than one person.

Analemma_ 8y ago

> For anyone who doesn't have time to read the whole article, the conclusion is pretty much "No, as long as we have a strong social safety net." Well, then the answer is "yes". The whole issue being debated here is whether capitalism inevitably leads to a concentration of wealth which can then be leveraged into political power to create more concentration of wealth in a positive feedback cycle. The theory goes that after a couple iterations of that cycle, the wealthy will dismantle the social safety net entirely so they can cut their taxes. Which is exactly what we're seeing right now.

gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
1) When competition is allowed to enter the market, we eventually have an equilibrium where the right number of competitors is producing a good or a service at the best price and highest quality possible. That is capitalism. When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself. 2) The wealthy cutting their taxes does not necessarily mean the social safety net has to be dismantled. You can have lower taxes and a high safety net. It all depends on what your tax revenue is and where you spend it. The US has trillions in tax revenue coming in every year, and yet we had something like 60 billion dollars of medicare fraud in a single year, exorbitant spending on useless military ventures, etc. If we slashed wasteful spending and fraudulent activities at the governmental level, we could afford a lot more safety net with less tax revenue. The issue is that cronyism in government results in government only ever being satisfied with getting by with more funding and more budget, and never less.
- spiralx 8y ago
  > When competition is allowed to enter the market, we eventually have an equilibrium where the right number of competitors is producing a good or a service at the best price and highest quality possible. That is capitalism. No, that's a highly theoretical model that doesn't exist in the real world. > When concentrations of wealth are leveraged into political power, you have cronyism in the government. That's not a fault of capitalism itself. No True Capitalism eh? Why would a capitalist not use their capital in whichever fashion would lead to gaining even more wealth? Whether that be monopoly, collusion, or political power?
  - gimmeDatCheddar 8y ago
    It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become obfuscated by government regulation and intervention. Example: Entering the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generic medicines in order to steal market share from the big pharmaceuticals is hard because of government red-tape. Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. Some capitalists are known to use their capital for expensive philanthropic ventures or to support candidates who want to raise taxes. Why did you ignore my comment about tax revenue and spending, by the way? That was the meat of the post.
    - spiralx 8y ago
      > Using capital as leverage for political influence is not a central tenet of capitalism. You can be a capitalist and remain entirely outside the political realm. If capitalism is based around rational self-interest, why would anyone exclude political power as a means of increasing their wealth? It would be deeply irrational to avoid such an avenue. > It does exist in the real world, although it can sometimes become obfuscated by government regulation and intervention. Example: Entering the pharmaceutical space to produce cost-effective generic medicines in order to steal market share from the big pharmaceuticals is hard because of government red-tape. Yes, regulations will interfere with the unfettered pursuit of profit, but that's by intent. > Why did you ignore my comment about tax revenue and spending, by the way? That was the meat of the post. Because it didn't really seem to make much of a point. Yes government spending priorities could be different and I'm sure there's wastage that could be lessened - although I'd guess less than you think. Cronyism exists in any organisation of more than one person.