3 ms·

>I dream of an economic system that serves human beings instead of the numerical abstractions behind which the rich and powerful hide their extreme selfishness.

by Qasaur 7y ago

>I dream of an economic system that serves human beings instead of the numerical abstractions behind which the rich and powerful hide their extreme selfishness. This is what capitalism is in its essence - a complex decentralised pricing mechanism where every human's choices is taken into account on the free market. The problem is that it has been corrupted by cronyism which has indirectly destroyed the human element of it (through centralisation and the formation of unnatural state-sanctioned monopolies and rent-seekers) and instead, as you put it, abstracted people into numbers. I don't think anyone actually wants to be treated as a number, and I strongly believe that personal and bespoke service is a quality that most people seek in the services they choose (especially medical and caregiving services). These preferences would normally provide strong competitive pressures. However, in the medical field at least, enormous barriers of entry (largely instituted and enforced by the state) has fortified incumbent corporations and removed the competitive pressure that startups and newcomers would provide. Just look at medical education/licensing and the enormous costs involved.

0xcde4c3db 7y ago
> This is what capitalism is in its essence - a complex decentralised pricing mechanism where every human's choices is taken into account on the free market. That's what capitalism is in a world populated by Homo economicus. We have to deal with it in a world populated by Homo sapiens, who are notably clumsy at separating capital allocation concerns from social dominance concerns (when we even bother to try).
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  There's also the small matter of us valuing ourselves rather highly regardless of whether there's a million others like us that could equally create more wealth for which ever capitalist we'd have the misfortune of being owned by. Some people may be content to consider themselves grist for the capitalist mill, but some very few I imagine.
danharaj 7y ago
When it's good we call it self-interest. When it's bad we call it cronyism. We define capitalism in terms of markets because we would rather not discuss the more fundamental question of who owns what. When capitalism produces spectacular exaggerations of human cruelty, it has been corrupted. When a socialist system produces it, it is intrinsic.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  > When capitalism produces spectacular exaggerations of human cruelty, it has been corrupted. When a socialist system produces it, it is intrinsic. Nobody blame socialism for cruelty in good faith. Cruelty has nothing to do with economic system. What socialism (or any government trying to replace or severely restrict private sector) really does way more worse is empty shelves, deficit and terrible recourse misallocation. There are more fundamental questions than the leisure ones like "who ownes what". Such as how come my parents lived in the second largest economy in terms of GDP and only few years later the whole country had nothing to eat, and we had a humanitarian crisis without any war or natural calamity.
klyrs 7y ago
> This is what capitalism is in its essence Whose capitalism? We (americans anyway) live in a corporate welfare state, and the market isn't even remotely "free."

by Qasaur 7y ago

0xcde4c3db 7y ago

> This is what capitalism is in its essence - a complex decentralised pricing mechanism where every human's choices is taken into account on the free market. That's what capitalism is in a world populated by Homo economicus. We have to deal with it in a world populated by Homo sapiens, who are notably clumsy at separating capital allocation concerns from social dominance concerns (when we even bother to try).

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
There's also the small matter of us valuing ourselves rather highly regardless of whether there's a million others like us that could equally create more wealth for which ever capitalist we'd have the misfortune of being owned by. Some people may be content to consider themselves grist for the capitalist mill, but some very few I imagine.

danharaj 7y ago

When it's good we call it self-interest. When it's bad we call it cronyism. We define capitalism in terms of markets because we would rather not discuss the more fundamental question of who owns what. When capitalism produces spectacular exaggerations of human cruelty, it has been corrupted. When a socialist system produces it, it is intrinsic.

ernst_klim 7y ago
> When capitalism produces spectacular exaggerations of human cruelty, it has been corrupted. When a socialist system produces it, it is intrinsic. Nobody blame socialism for cruelty in good faith. Cruelty has nothing to do with economic system. What socialism (or any government trying to replace or severely restrict private sector) really does way more worse is empty shelves, deficit and terrible recourse misallocation. There are more fundamental questions than the leisure ones like "who ownes what". Such as how come my parents lived in the second largest economy in terms of GDP and only few years later the whole country had nothing to eat, and we had a humanitarian crisis without any war or natural calamity.

klyrs 7y ago

> This is what capitalism is in its essence Whose capitalism? We (americans anyway) live in a corporate welfare state, and the market isn't even remotely "free."