3 ms·

It's magic thinking to suppose that profit and general goodness always match up. There's no logical reason to think that would happen. What often happens, fort

It's magic thinking to suppose that profit and general goodness always match up. There's no logical reason to think that would happen. What often happens, fortunately, is that they match well enough that the relative simplicity of the market system makes it a net positive. But to think that capitalism works wonders for society and customers is just silly. Theme Park parodies this fact of life very aptly.

dleslie 6y ago
No one in the article or this thread suggested that good intentions and profit will _always_ align. That is, indeed, a silly proposition. Capitalism has worked wonders for society; it has thus far surpassed all competing modes of wealth distribution in terms of life expectation, child mortality, literacy, and even technological development. Capitalist Democracies have performed so well it's sort of amazing. And in this globally connected world one doesn't have to settle; those that don't favour capitalism can travel to a number of south american states and enjoy an alternative. My sister in law has done just this, and is happily living off the land in Peru.
- pmachinery 6y ago
  Improvements in life expectancy, child mortality, literacy are the result of socialist struggle and regulation, including free education, universal health care, increased workers' rights and welfare safety nets. As for wealth distribution, what do you think the "one-percent" is all about?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
    wealth distribution is not a virtuous goal insofar that we have seen what attempts at the opposite end up causing. Everyone becomes equal, way way down. What is important, extremely important, but no one talks about - is equality of opportunity. In this regard, more than 50% of all americans will spend at least 1 year in the top 10% of all income. Compare that to most europe, where for example, the same 10 families in france in italy , after many centuries, still hold on to money and power...and never lose either. That is a worthy goal to keep improving on. It doesn't matter how much anyone amasses - what really matters is that everyone has a fair shot at it, too. https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46 https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d...
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    In Eastern Europe life expectancy increased and child mortality decreased after the fall of socialism.
    - pmachinery 6y ago
      I'd be interested to see which countries in Eastern Europe have abandoned the kind of socialist policies that I mentioned - free/universal health/education/welfare - and found their population better off/healthier as a result.
      - Viliam1234 6y ago
        Different socialist policies had different impact on health; some of them positive, some of them negative. On one hand, universal healthcare, because universal everything. Great! On the other hand, factories were treated like objects of worship. Like, in the middle of a city, a huge factory is built, poluting all the air and water, thousands of people get cancer, the life expectancy in the region decreases by five or ten years, but hey, more factories = more progress. If you complain, you get arrested. Also, the healthcare was a bit factory-like. For example, c-section at almost every childbirth, because it's more efficient that way. (Secret mandatory sterilizations after third child for minorities.) Then, when the socialism was over, the universal healthcare remained, the factory in the middle of the city went out of business, people finally started complaining and some standards in healthcare were increased... and now we have the best of both worlds!
  - dleslie 6y ago
    And which countries have the abundance of wealth and opportunity available to afford those social programs? There's only one developed capitalist nation shirking the mantle of social responsibility, but the rest of the socialist democracies are enjoying the fruits of capitalism.

dleslie 6y ago

No one in the article or this thread suggested that good intentions and profit will _always_ align. That is, indeed, a silly proposition. Capitalism has worked wonders for society; it has thus far surpassed all competing modes of wealth distribution in terms of life expectation, child mortality, literacy, and even technological development. Capitalist Democracies have performed so well it's sort of amazing. And in this globally connected world one doesn't have to settle; those that don't favour capitalism can travel to a number of south american states and enjoy an alternative. My sister in law has done just this, and is happily living off the land in Peru.

pmachinery 6y ago
Improvements in life expectancy, child mortality, literacy are the result of socialist struggle and regulation, including free education, universal health care, increased workers' rights and welfare safety nets. As for wealth distribution, what do you think the "one-percent" is all about?
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  wealth distribution is not a virtuous goal insofar that we have seen what attempts at the opposite end up causing. Everyone becomes equal, way way down. What is important, extremely important, but no one talks about - is equality of opportunity. In this regard, more than 50% of all americans will spend at least 1 year in the top 10% of all income. Compare that to most europe, where for example, the same 10 families in france in italy , after many centuries, still hold on to money and power...and never lose either. That is a worthy goal to keep improving on. It doesn't matter how much anyone amasses - what really matters is that everyone has a fair shot at it, too. https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d8f00bc0cb46 https://medium.com/incerto/inequality-and-skin-in-the-game-d...
- Viliam1234 6y ago
  In Eastern Europe life expectancy increased and child mortality decreased after the fall of socialism.
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    I'd be interested to see which countries in Eastern Europe have abandoned the kind of socialist policies that I mentioned - free/universal health/education/welfare - and found their population better off/healthier as a result.
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      Different socialist policies had different impact on health; some of them positive, some of them negative. On one hand, universal healthcare, because universal everything. Great! On the other hand, factories were treated like objects of worship. Like, in the middle of a city, a huge factory is built, poluting all the air and water, thousands of people get cancer, the life expectancy in the region decreases by five or ten years, but hey, more factories = more progress. If you complain, you get arrested. Also, the healthcare was a bit factory-like. For example, c-section at almost every childbirth, because it's more efficient that way. (Secret mandatory sterilizations after third child for minorities.) Then, when the socialism was over, the universal healthcare remained, the factory in the middle of the city went out of business, people finally started complaining and some standards in healthcare were increased... and now we have the best of both worlds!
- dleslie 6y ago
  And which countries have the abundance of wealth and opportunity available to afford those social programs? There's only one developed capitalist nation shirking the mantle of social responsibility, but the rest of the socialist democracies are enjoying the fruits of capitalism.