6 ms·

> your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect informatio

> your "capitalism" definitions can be pointed to as potential causes of the 737 fiasco For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. One purpose of regulation is to improve the situation. If the FAA certifies a plane as safe, then consumers can rely on that certification and don't need to do their own safety research. They still don't have "perfect information", but it's a lot better than without it. Good regulation is not "antithetical" to capitalism, it is often necessary for it.

blotter_paper 7y ago
Intended by whom? I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it, and if you don't restrict me then the thing is unregulated. I consider this statement a tautology. I don't know what you mean by "good regulation" and "capitalism", but I'll stand by my original phrasing.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade. A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade. However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    > Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.
    - speedplane 7y ago
      > If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority). Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.
      - blotter_paper 7y ago
        I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".
dragonwriter 7y ago
> For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.
- speedplane 7y ago
  > If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure. I actually agree with you. Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one). Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a result, and it's fair to call into question the legitimacy of the entire enterprise. That said, there are good ideas in capitalism, and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one) Perfect information isn't part of the foundation of capitalism. It's part of rational choice theory, which didn't exist until long ashtray capitalism. (There are arguments for capitalism rooted in rational choice theory, but those are retroactive justifications not the foundation of the system.) > Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a resul The abuse predates the theory “justifying” it, the theory isn't the cause of the abuse. Capitalism historically wasn't grounded in theory, it was grounded in the opportunism of the mercantile class under late feudalism leverage wealth, power, and the opportunities created by new technology to rearrange society so that the mercantile class (the subset that became the capitalist class) could displace the economic (and also political) power for the feudal nobility.
andrepd 7y ago
>For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. And of course advertising, a nefarious tool to lead people to make decisions which otherwise they would have not.

blotter_paper 7y ago

Intended by whom? I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it, and if you don't restrict me then the thing is unregulated. I consider this statement a tautology. I don't know what you mean by "good regulation" and "capitalism", but I'll stand by my original phrasing.

speedplane 7y ago
> I claimed that regulation is antithetical to free exchange -- if you restrict me from trading something then I am not free to trade it Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. An airline selling a ticket on an unsafe plane but calling it safe is fraud, and fraud is not free trade. A "perfect" regulation would only limit fraudulent trade, but allow all other types of trade. However, because we don't live in a perfect world, regulation will inevitably limit some legitimate trade as well as fraudulent trade. A "good" regulation is one that limits enough fraudulent trade to more than compensate for the legitimate trade that it inhibits.
- blotter_paper 7y ago
  > Not quite. If you buy something without knowing what you're getting, that's not free trade. As a matter of language, I disagree. If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. We can agree or disagree about the desirability of that, but linguistically it seems pretty clear to me that this is a restriction of free exchange. Even when I supported such a use of government force I could recognise that.
  - speedplane 7y ago
    > If I want to bet that the man offering me a lottery ticket is accurately conveying the odds, and you don't want to let me make that decision because you just overheard him discussing the fraud he was about to commit against me, physically stopping us from making that exchange by use of force is a restriction of my freedom to make that bad decision. If someone wants to sell your friend a lottery ticket, and you know with certainty that the seller has no intention of paying out a winner, this is not free exchange. It's just a lie and simple fraud. Furthermore, as a friend, you should probably at least try to intervene. The same is true of government (or any authority). Making a fraudulent trade is not "free exchange", legally, morally, or linguistically.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      I would try to intervene with language, but not violence. I would appreciate and expect the same from my friends -- there are people in my life I've discussed very similar hypotheticals with. None of that has to do with whether or not physical interference would constitute a cessation of free exchange; forget legality and morality, just think about the definitions of the words we're using. In any situation where you are using violence to stop two people from exchanging physical objects, you're interfering with free exchange. If you actually disagree with this, I would like a term which refers to the concept I'm trying to discuss. I'd suggest that you're referring to something more specific like "well informed free trade" or "information symmetric free trade".

dragonwriter 7y ago

> For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure.

speedplane 7y ago
> If you assume that capitalism is intended to work not in the way sought by the people who drove the move to capitalism but instead according to idealized economic theories much younger than capitalism, sure. I actually agree with you. Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one). Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a result, and it's fair to call into question the legitimacy of the entire enterprise. That said, there are good ideas in capitalism, and we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Much of the foundation of capitalism was based on flawed assumptions ("perfect information" being a major one) Perfect information isn't part of the foundation of capitalism. It's part of rational choice theory, which didn't exist until long ashtray capitalism. (There are arguments for capitalism rooted in rational choice theory, but those are retroactive justifications not the foundation of the system.) > Huge amounts of abuse were allowed to be perpetuated as a resul The abuse predates the theory “justifying” it, the theory isn't the cause of the abuse. Capitalism historically wasn't grounded in theory, it was grounded in the opportunism of the mercantile class under late feudalism leverage wealth, power, and the opportunities created by new technology to rearrange society so that the mercantile class (the subset that became the capitalist class) could displace the economic (and also political) power for the feudal nobility.

andrepd 7y ago

>For capitalism to work as intended, there has to be "perfect information", i.e., no lying and everyone knows what they're paying for. This is obviously a practical impossibility: companies and people lie, and most consumers buy things without fully researching or knowing what it is that they're getting. And of course advertising, a nefarious tool to lead people to make decisions which otherwise they would have not.