4 ms·

That could just be correlation. India and China were doing fine until the Europeans came and subjugated them. There was some upheaval when the Europeans left a

by ohyes 8y ago

That could just be correlation. India and China were doing fine until the Europeans came and subjugated them. There was some upheaval when the Europeans left and created a power vacuum. Shockingly, being conquered and ceded and the related civil unrest could also be blamed for (for example) strongman dictators that happened to come into power and cause famines, or genocide and sectarian strife. A lot of that conquering was done in the name of capitalism. (The British East India company, specifically). Capitalism is fine, it serves the purpose of obtaining a local optimum in certain trade situations. But it is a completely amoral theory. All it tells us is if this, then that. It is a set of formulas. Sometimes it creates net good, because it causes us to have more efficient and liquid markets, overall creating more wealth for those allowed to participate in the market. But other times it tells us, these people should starve or go homeless, because they don't create economic value. (In true, unbridled capitalism, a lot of marginalized people would simply die). The number of people who don't create economic value will clearly increase if automation of 'work' continues.

merpnderp 8y ago
India and China were not doing fine when Europeans came and subjugated them. Slavery in a feudalistic society isn't some rosey funland that the Europeans ruined. Life sucked all over the world, for 99.999% of people, who lived in nearly eternal bone crushing poverty. And how is freely trading your labor and goods for other's labor and goods an immoral system? I would call capitalism the most moral system we've ever devised. I assume you would think some central authority should decide who gets and does what, in some system that graph theory quickly shows runs into O2 complexity with node to node interactions swamping any decision making authority. FYI, having an authority tell people what they can and can't do with their labor sounds suspiciously like slavery, or exactly how the majority of people in India and China lived most of their lives pre-contact - as serfs, just like the rest of the world.
- eric_h 8y ago
  > how is freely trading your labor and goods for other's labor and goods an immoral system? GP said "amoral" not "immoral". Morality is only a factor in capitalism in so much as it informs the decisions of the actors involved. Both truly moral activities and truly immoral activities can coexist in a capitalist system.
- ohyes 8y ago
  But you're saying capitalism is what has made things better. The Europeans subjugated and killed people in the name of capitalism. Cultures were extinguished (we're talking genocide). You offer no evidence that capitalism made things better other than it being somewhat correlated with improvements of the last few dozen years. It could just as easily be the spread of liberalism or globalism. You can't really say as there are multiple factors involved. You can say it has increased market efficiency, and that increased market efficiency is generally good/useful. Not immoral, amoral. Capitalism as a system doesn't make moral judgements. Guns, child sex-slaves and heroin follow the same principles as wheat and butter. We make moral judgements about them, but the market does not. It just weighs. I understand the complexity issue fine. Complex markets are likely NP hard. As I said, capitalism (specifically free trade) is an okay heuristic for reaching a local optimum, but it is certainly possible that we could do greater good under a different system with a better heuristic that actually takes into account what good is. Anyway, it doesn't deserve to be your primary compass for making the world better. Following the maxim of bettering capitalism at all costs can lead you down some decidedly twisted paths.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    Saying the Europeans subjugated and killed people in the name of capitalism is one heck of a claim. Mostly they did it in the name of their country and king or whatever excuse. But they certainly didn't say: "I'm enslaving you and stealing your capital in the name of a free market system which believes every person is the owner and price arbitrar of their own labor," which is so outlandish a claim as to require extremely compelling documentation to the contrary. If anything, Adam Smith's most famous work on free trade was a critical moral point in ending English slavery, which dovetailed nicely in with reformed Christian beliefs against slavery. And free trade capitalism is just a tool, but a tool so powerful it lifts billions out of poverty even when they're ruled by totalitarian governments. Or would you argue that the US's efforts to reform Chinese communism were more effective than it's efforts in engaging in free trade, in helping alleviate the suffering tens of millions? We should all support freedom and democracy, but lets not kid ourself about the power of free trade markets to improve people's lives faster than simply advocating for the vote and free speech.

by ohyes 8y ago

merpnderp 8y ago

India and China were not doing fine when Europeans came and subjugated them. Slavery in a feudalistic society isn't some rosey funland that the Europeans ruined. Life sucked all over the world, for 99.999% of people, who lived in nearly eternal bone crushing poverty. And how is freely trading your labor and goods for other's labor and goods an immoral system? I would call capitalism the most moral system we've ever devised. I assume you would think some central authority should decide who gets and does what, in some system that graph theory quickly shows runs into O2 complexity with node to node interactions swamping any decision making authority. FYI, having an authority tell people what they can and can't do with their labor sounds suspiciously like slavery, or exactly how the majority of people in India and China lived most of their lives pre-contact - as serfs, just like the rest of the world.

eric_h 8y ago
> how is freely trading your labor and goods for other's labor and goods an immoral system? GP said "amoral" not "immoral". Morality is only a factor in capitalism in so much as it informs the decisions of the actors involved. Both truly moral activities and truly immoral activities can coexist in a capitalist system.
ohyes 8y ago
But you're saying capitalism is what has made things better. The Europeans subjugated and killed people in the name of capitalism. Cultures were extinguished (we're talking genocide). You offer no evidence that capitalism made things better other than it being somewhat correlated with improvements of the last few dozen years. It could just as easily be the spread of liberalism or globalism. You can't really say as there are multiple factors involved. You can say it has increased market efficiency, and that increased market efficiency is generally good/useful. Not immoral, amoral. Capitalism as a system doesn't make moral judgements. Guns, child sex-slaves and heroin follow the same principles as wheat and butter. We make moral judgements about them, but the market does not. It just weighs. I understand the complexity issue fine. Complex markets are likely NP hard. As I said, capitalism (specifically free trade) is an okay heuristic for reaching a local optimum, but it is certainly possible that we could do greater good under a different system with a better heuristic that actually takes into account what good is. Anyway, it doesn't deserve to be your primary compass for making the world better. Following the maxim of bettering capitalism at all costs can lead you down some decidedly twisted paths.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  Saying the Europeans subjugated and killed people in the name of capitalism is one heck of a claim. Mostly they did it in the name of their country and king or whatever excuse. But they certainly didn't say: "I'm enslaving you and stealing your capital in the name of a free market system which believes every person is the owner and price arbitrar of their own labor," which is so outlandish a claim as to require extremely compelling documentation to the contrary. If anything, Adam Smith's most famous work on free trade was a critical moral point in ending English slavery, which dovetailed nicely in with reformed Christian beliefs against slavery. And free trade capitalism is just a tool, but a tool so powerful it lifts billions out of poverty even when they're ruled by totalitarian governments. Or would you argue that the US's efforts to reform Chinese communism were more effective than it's efforts in engaging in free trade, in helping alleviate the suffering tens of millions? We should all support freedom and democracy, but lets not kid ourself about the power of free trade markets to improve people's lives faster than simply advocating for the vote and free speech.