3 ms·

Most dramatic changes in economic systems have resulted in disaster. Yes there are competing ideas and some have merit but it's important to realise that most o

by xupybd 6y ago

Most dramatic changes in economic systems have resulted in disaster. Yes there are competing ideas and some have merit but it's important to realise that most of the systems we've had have not work as well as capitalism has. That is not to say we have the perfect system but it is not the disaster most of its opponents claim it is. As such we should be very careful to make sudden changes in the hope of a utopia, because getting it wrong has a very high price. A price that will cost lives.

arcticbull 6y ago
The reality is there is no purely capitalist society in the world. Each society is somewhere on the spectrum of socialist and capitalist, borrowing different quantities of ideas from both. For instance, America has a socialized postal system, socialized school system, socialized highway network, socialized fire departments, socialized police, and a socialized army. That doesn't make it socialism, but it doesn't make it 100% capitalist either. The question being asked here is more one of redistricting the divisions between the socialized and the private sectors of America.
- xupybd 6y ago
  This is very true. I don't think there are any examples of pure capitalism. I don't typically speak of pure capitalism when discussing the topic. Most of the time when people say they want to change away from capitalism they are actually talking about the current system. Often when they talk about ending capitalism they are actually talking about slightly increasing the mix of socialism. But there is a strong sentiment that our current system is inherently broken due to the level of capitalism it currently contains. I would argue that it's the best system we've ever had. By that I mean the mix of capitalism and socialism we have in the western world. All the varying mixes that exist have been wild successes compared to any historical systems. Also noting that changing too fast could be dangerous. Much of the language is used inaccurately, something I'm very guilty of, so it is hard to assess what change people are hoping to achieve. I've heard a scary amount of poorly thought out claims that we have a suitable replacement for our current mix of capitalism and socialism. I'm afraid that could lead to similar problems that the Soviets faced. I could be wrong so all I call for is caution.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > Much of the language is used inaccurately, something I'm very guilty of, so it is hard to assess what change people are hoping to achieve. This is very well said, and I think there's an awful lot of public perception manipulation by entrenched interests that's contributing to that.
    - Ancapistani 6y ago
      They suppress competition, they can’t prevent it. It costs more over time to undermine competitors via loss pricing than to compete.

by xupybd 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

The reality is there is no purely capitalist society in the world. Each society is somewhere on the spectrum of socialist and capitalist, borrowing different quantities of ideas from both. For instance, America has a socialized postal system, socialized school system, socialized highway network, socialized fire departments, socialized police, and a socialized army. That doesn't make it socialism, but it doesn't make it 100% capitalist either. The question being asked here is more one of redistricting the divisions between the socialized and the private sectors of America.

xupybd 6y ago
This is very true. I don't think there are any examples of pure capitalism. I don't typically speak of pure capitalism when discussing the topic. Most of the time when people say they want to change away from capitalism they are actually talking about the current system. Often when they talk about ending capitalism they are actually talking about slightly increasing the mix of socialism. But there is a strong sentiment that our current system is inherently broken due to the level of capitalism it currently contains. I would argue that it's the best system we've ever had. By that I mean the mix of capitalism and socialism we have in the western world. All the varying mixes that exist have been wild successes compared to any historical systems. Also noting that changing too fast could be dangerous. Much of the language is used inaccurately, something I'm very guilty of, so it is hard to assess what change people are hoping to achieve. I've heard a scary amount of poorly thought out claims that we have a suitable replacement for our current mix of capitalism and socialism. I'm afraid that could lead to similar problems that the Soviets faced. I could be wrong so all I call for is caution.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > Much of the language is used inaccurately, something I'm very guilty of, so it is hard to assess what change people are hoping to achieve. This is very well said, and I think there's an awful lot of public perception manipulation by entrenched interests that's contributing to that.
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    They suppress competition, they can’t prevent it. It costs more over time to undermine competitors via loss pricing than to compete.