5 ms·

Can you explain your comment?

jstewartmobile 8y ago
I don't have a dog in this fight, but when I bring up some pathology of "capitalism" (like planned obsolescence for example) with one of my libertarian friends, they come back with "oh, but we're not working under -true- capitalism", and I'm like "gee, that sounds so familiar"
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  My reaction to stuff like that is "regulate it". Big businesses have to be regulated to prevent abuse... nothing wrong with that. Raise up the lowly (by giving them as much freedom as possible and leveling the field between them and the powerful), bring down the lofty (by regulating them to the extent that their power takes freedom away from the lowly)... that's the ideal economic policy as I see it :)
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism#Overview Tried to post earlier, but got rate-limited for pissing off dang a while back.
    - TimTheTinker 8y ago
      Wow, never heard of this before. This is pretty close to where I stand. Guess I was wrong about the definition of “capitalism”.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  Isn't the difference that, empirically, the more socialist a country becomes, the more its living standards deteriorate, while the more liberal a country becomes, the more its living standards improve?
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Neither “socialist” nor “liberal” are qualities that exist on a simple total ordering such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate, and standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures and not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      > such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate I don't know where you're getting this idea. There are coherent and accurate ways to measure how liberalized an economy is. > standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures They are optimized for measuring human welfare, through measures like access to and quality of food, healthcare, education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, etc. That they empirically end up favoring economic liberalism speaks to the effectiveness of the latter. > not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems How so? If the very same country historically fares better under periods of economic liberalism, and worse under periods of economic authoritarianism, how is that not a valid data point for the effectiveness of economic liberalism versus authoritarianism?
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic, and do fairly well by almost every objective measure of a society. Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under dictatorship, democracy, "economic liberalism", and "socialism". Empirically speaking, perhaps it's not what you do, but how you do it?
    - TimTheTinker 8y ago
      “Righteousness exalts a nation” regardless of its form of government.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      > Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic Literally none of the Western European countries are socialist. They are all market economies. As the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said: I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. Similarly Jeffery Sachs notes: The eastern countries must reject any lingering ideas about a “third way”, such as a chimerical “market socialism” based on public ownership or worker self-management, and go straight for a western-style market economy...The main debate in economic reform should therefore be about the means of transition, not the ends. Eastern Europe will still argue over the ends: for example, whether to aim for Swedish-style social democracy or Thatcherite liberalism. But that can wait. Sweden and Britain alike have nearly complete private ownership, private financial markets and active labour markets. Eastern Europe today has none of these institutions; for it, the alternative models of Western Europe are almost identical. > Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under... "economic liberalism". On the contrary. Those countries have fared much better under economic liberalism.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but when I bring up some pathology of "capitalism" (like planned obsolescence for example) with one of my libertarian friends, they come back with "oh, but we're not working under -true- capitalism", and I'm like "gee, that sounds so familiar"

TimTheTinker 8y ago
My reaction to stuff like that is "regulate it". Big businesses have to be regulated to prevent abuse... nothing wrong with that. Raise up the lowly (by giving them as much freedom as possible and leveling the field between them and the powerful), bring down the lofty (by regulating them to the extent that their power takes freedom away from the lowly)... that's the ideal economic policy as I see it :)
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  Sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism#Overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism#Overview Tried to post earlier, but got rate-limited for pissing off dang a while back.
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    Wow, never heard of this before. This is pretty close to where I stand. Guess I was wrong about the definition of “capitalism”.
throwaway37585 8y ago
Isn't the difference that, empirically, the more socialist a country becomes, the more its living standards deteriorate, while the more liberal a country becomes, the more its living standards improve?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Neither “socialist” nor “liberal” are qualities that exist on a simple total ordering such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate, and standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures and not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    > such that that claim is even coherent, much less accurate I don't know where you're getting this idea. There are coherent and accurate ways to measure how liberalized an economy is. > standard of living measurements tend to be optimized for particular economic structures They are optimized for measuring human welfare, through measures like access to and quality of food, healthcare, education, life expectancy, incidence of disease, cost of goods and services, infrastructure, etc. That they empirically end up favoring economic liberalism speaks to the effectiveness of the latter. > not comparable across significantly different economic systems without problems How so? If the very same country historically fares better under periods of economic liberalism, and worse under periods of economic authoritarianism, how is that not a valid data point for the effectiveness of economic liberalism versus authoritarianism?
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic, and do fairly well by almost every objective measure of a society. Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under dictatorship, democracy, "economic liberalism", and "socialism". Empirically speaking, perhaps it's not what you do, but how you do it?
  - TimTheTinker 8y ago
    “Righteousness exalts a nation” regardless of its form of government.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    > Western Europe and most of the Anglosphere are very socialistic Literally none of the Western European countries are socialist. They are all market economies. As the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said: I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy. Similarly Jeffery Sachs notes: The eastern countries must reject any lingering ideas about a “third way”, such as a chimerical “market socialism” based on public ownership or worker self-management, and go straight for a western-style market economy...The main debate in economic reform should therefore be about the means of transition, not the ends. Eastern Europe will still argue over the ends: for example, whether to aim for Swedish-style social democracy or Thatcherite liberalism. But that can wait. Sweden and Britain alike have nearly complete private ownership, private financial markets and active labour markets. Eastern Europe today has none of these institutions; for it, the alternative models of Western Europe are almost identical. > Countries like Venezuela and Argentina have been a mess under... "economic liberalism". On the contrary. Those countries have fared much better under economic liberalism.