6 ms·

Without watching a 45 minute video, I assume the argument is something like: > whatever system most effectively leverages comparative advantage / generates the

by rconti 7y ago

Without watching a 45 minute video, I assume the argument is something like: > whatever system most effectively leverages comparative advantage / generates the most wealth / most efficiently allocates resources is that which is most humane, because it has the possibility to lift the most people from poverty, from inhumane conditions. It is, of course, up to societies to regulate the allocation of those resources to maximize the realization of that possibility.

oDot 7y ago
If you agree that capitalism makes for the most efficient allocation of resources, there is no need to regulate that allocation.
- yogthos 7y ago
  The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn into oligarchies.
  - oDot 7y ago
    Free markets are NOT a zero sum game. If I buy an iPhone from Apple for $1000, you'd think they "accumulated resources at my expense", but I got something -- an iPhone. That iPhone is worth for me more than $1000, otherwise I'd keep the $1000. For Apple, it's worth less, otherwise it would raise the price or go bankrupt. Both parties are better off. What people call "late stage Capitalism" is not Capitalism at all -- it is Cronyism. It is the private sector buying favors from the government. Capitalism prevents that by definition. True capitalism may as well make people very rich, and although I've not verified it, I am willing to concede that it widens the wealth gap. However, poor people in capitalist countries are far richer than they would have been without it. Why would you care about the gap? Care about how you are doing.
    - yogthos 7y ago
      Of course markets are a zero sum game. The reality is that capital owners accumulate majority of the resources in the country. Then they use these resources to manipulate laws, fund political campaigns, and news organizations for their own benefit. Average American cannot afford an unexpected $400 expense [1], while 3 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country [2]. Thinking that this isn't a zero sum game takes a lot of naivete. Under capitalism the government is nothing more than a management committee for the rich because the rich have millions of times more political influence than a regular citizen. Here's what a long term Cambridge study [3] found about the effects of capitalism in America: >What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. This mythical true capitalism you speak of has never been observed in practice because it's at odds with basic human nature. Capitalism favors psychopathic behavior because those who are willing to be ruthless, to step over others, cheat, lie, and steal will out-compete those who do not. Likewise, the idea that poor people in capitalist countries are far richer than they would be without it is a complete and utter fantasy. [4] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#1a9eb78a3cf8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric... [3] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... [4] https://sci-hub.tw//https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/AD12-7RYT-XVAR-3R2U https://sci-hub.tw//https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10....
      - oDot 7y ago
yaa_minu 7y ago
Maybe you should watch the video before passing a comment? You're completely wrong with your assumption because he made no such statement in the talk.

by rconti 7y ago

oDot 7y ago

If you agree that capitalism makes for the most efficient allocation of resources, there is no need to regulate that allocation.

yogthos 7y ago
The real question is towards what end those resources are being efficiently allocated. Capitalism is an incredibly efficient system for accumulating resources with a tiny percentage of the population at the expense of everyone else. This is precisely why late stage capitalist societies inevitably turn into oligarchies.
- oDot 7y ago
  Free markets are NOT a zero sum game. If I buy an iPhone from Apple for $1000, you'd think they "accumulated resources at my expense", but I got something -- an iPhone. That iPhone is worth for me more than $1000, otherwise I'd keep the $1000. For Apple, it's worth less, otherwise it would raise the price or go bankrupt. Both parties are better off. What people call "late stage Capitalism" is not Capitalism at all -- it is Cronyism. It is the private sector buying favors from the government. Capitalism prevents that by definition. True capitalism may as well make people very rich, and although I've not verified it, I am willing to concede that it widens the wealth gap. However, poor people in capitalist countries are far richer than they would have been without it. Why would you care about the gap? Care about how you are doing.
  - yogthos 7y ago
    Of course markets are a zero sum game. The reality is that capital owners accumulate majority of the resources in the country. Then they use these resources to manipulate laws, fund political campaigns, and news organizations for their own benefit. Average American cannot afford an unexpected $400 expense [1], while 3 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 50% of the country [2]. Thinking that this isn't a zero sum game takes a lot of naivete. Under capitalism the government is nothing more than a management committee for the rich because the rich have millions of times more political influence than a regular citizen. Here's what a long term Cambridge study [3] found about the effects of capitalism in America: >What do our findings say about democracy in America? They certainly constitute troubling news for advocates of “populistic” democracy, who want governments to respond primarily or exclusively to the policy preferences of their citizens. In the United States, our findings indicate, the majority does not rule—at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. This mythical true capitalism you speak of has never been observed in practice because it's at odds with basic human nature. Capitalism favors psychopathic behavior because those who are willing to be ruthless, to step over others, cheat, lie, and steal will out-compete those who do not. Likewise, the idea that poor people in capitalist countries are far richer than they would be without it is a complete and utter fantasy. [4] [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-cant-handle-a-400-unexpected-expense.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-richest-americans-hold-more-wealth-than-bottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#1a9eb78a3cf8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahkirsch/2017/11/09/the-3-ric... [3] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... [4] https://sci-hub.tw//https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2190/AD12-7RYT-XVAR-3R2U https://sci-hub.tw//https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10....
    - oDot 7y ago

yaa_minu 7y ago

Maybe you should watch the video before passing a comment? You're completely wrong with your assumption because he made no such statement in the talk.