4 ms·
> but that changing resource allocation becomes a political problem. Resource allocation is always a political problem. (On a large-scale, anyway.) > In a cap
by einpoklum 6y ago
> but that changing resource allocation becomes a political problem.
Resource allocation is always a political problem. (On a large-scale, anyway.)
> In a capitalist system, if something looks like it's going to be a big economic hit people are ready to sell off other assets and pour billions of dollars into it.
1. In a Capitalist system, most people have little assets; and most assets are under the control of a minority (which becomes relatively smaller over time.
2. A "big economic hit" is not necessarily in people's interests anyway.
3. The USSR was not a Communist society (and didn't claim to be). It was ruled by "The Communist Party" but that's really not the same thing.
> there's a guy who doesn't want to lose funding for his department who might have more power than his rivals
Not entirely different from divisions within a large corporation who vie for funding and/or power over their peers. (And the managers of such divisions.)
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> In a Capitalist system, most people have little assets; and most assets are under the control of a minority (which becomes relatively smaller over time. do you have any evidence for this?
- averros 6y agoIn a socialist system ALL assets are controlled by small cadre of Party plutocrats.
- cbnotfromthere 6y agoAsking for evidence from Bolshies is futile. Let me provide the evidence for the opposite: the US stock market capitalization grew at a higher rate than US population.
- Ar-Curunir 6y agoUh, the world as it is right now?
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThe one where the capitalist system commoditized ownership of assets? So more people own capital than ever before? That one?
- einpoklum 6y agoYes, that one, where most assets are held by the top few percent of the population. Globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth In the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoThat doesn’t appear to be the case from the article you posted. Moreover its the case that more people have access to wealth than ever before because the capitalist system has commodified the ownership of wealth through stocks. So I’m not convinced about this claim. Look at the graph from the article. The amount of wealth owned by the top 0.7% is dwarfed by the next bracket. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_wealth_globally.jpg#/media/File:Distribution_of_wealth_globally.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Distribution_of_wealth_gl...
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago> > there's a guy who doesn't want to lose funding for his department who might have more power than his rivals > Not entirely different from divisions within a large corporation who vie for funding and/or power over their peers. (And the managers of such divisions.) Sure. It's just that we can get rid of large corporations if they blunder enough (see, for example, Kodak). When it's the government, and they restrict elections to one party, you're a lot more stuck.
- shirakawasuna 6y agoGlad to see these takes on HN. Keep it up!
- cbmuser 6y agoHistory has shown that even workers can become wealthy in a capitalist country while they will stay poor in socialist countries. Just compare the history of West and East Germany. There is a reason why East Germany and all other socialist countries in history had to lock their people up in their own country.
- LoSboccacc 6y agothe first point stands but the second line is not the best example, the West German economy was built on top of the Marshall Plan money, not on it's own merits.