4 ms·

Personally I am surprised that the idea of pure capitalism is still preached at all. I don’t understand why. No one is in a capitalist system. Democracies ensu

Personally I am surprised that the idea of pure capitalism is still preached at all. I don’t understand why. No one is in a capitalist system. Democracies ensure that - politicians will act to ensure the interest of their supporters. As a result there will always be tariffs, subsidies or tax breaks to support different types of commercial work. Is it just a rhetorical tool? Some times it reads as if people are actually arguing based on a pure capitalist model and it’s confusing.

imtringued 5y ago
Mostly because capitalism can afford to make mistakes. If the government makes a mistake then everyone will have to live with that mistake. If a company makes a mistake, it has the risk of going bankrupt. Of course pure capitalism is not realistic nor desirable in practice.
ianleeclark 5y ago
> No one is in a capitalist system. We are all in a capitalist system. Capitalism doesn't mean free markets, it has a much wider definition than that, and doesn't require free markets.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  His previous sentence mentions "pure capitalism" which makes the one you quoted make more sense. No one lives in a purely capitalist system, but it is hel up as an ideal. Which is bizarre, as it would be a pretty hellish thing to live under. There's a very good reason why our capitalism is hybridused with democracy and state run services. And attempts since the late 80s/90s to move closer to a purely capitalist system seem to mainly have caused greater inequality and inefficiency.
  - ianleeclark 5y ago
    > His previous sentence mentions "pure capitalism" which makes the one you quoted make more sense. I read it as, "why talk about pure capitalism when we're not even in capitalism?" I've seen far more conflation of the two by commenters on HN than not, so maybe that's clouding my reading.
  - foxpurple 5y ago
    The more common name for this is Anarco Capitalism. Or ancap. It’s somewhat of a meme on the internet because of how absurd situations become with no government or central police force.
  - aaron-santos 5y ago
    Just a definition check. By 'purely capitalist system', does that mean a world where all of the means of production are privately owned eg: the non-existence of worker-owned corps, co-ops, or any government-owned production?
dgb23 5y ago
> Is it just a rhetorical tool? It is an ideology that is used to solidify and concentrate power. "Free trade agreements" that actually lower trade interaction and increase the foothold of multinational corporations in foreign countries to outsource work and avoid taxation. "Competition" for the workers, while large corporations get massive tax cuts, bailouts and lobby for regulations that benefit them and are a burden for SMBs. "Market innovation" that is largely superficial and stands of the shoulders of giants, researchers who are paid by the taxpayer. (I'm being hostile and uncharitable here to get a point across and give some counterweight to the status quo.)
janeroe 5y ago
> Democracies ensure that - politicians will act to ensure the interest of their supporters. Will they? I think they are more like adults promising sweets for breakfast to children if they behave (vote). Not really in their interest if you think about it.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
  Supporters =/= voters The supporters are the PACs and special interest lobbying groups exchanging funding for political achievements. Voters are just the marginalized workers whose favor needs to be curried every so often to keep critical analysis of our sociopolitical economic reality in check.
daemin 5y ago
I think Ha-Joon Chang said it best, that a Free Market isn't actually free because every market has rules that the buyers and sellers have to follow for it to function at all.

imtringued 5y ago

Mostly because capitalism can afford to make mistakes. If the government makes a mistake then everyone will have to live with that mistake. If a company makes a mistake, it has the risk of going bankrupt. Of course pure capitalism is not realistic nor desirable in practice.

ianleeclark 5y ago

> No one is in a capitalist system. We are all in a capitalist system. Capitalism doesn't mean free markets, it has a much wider definition than that, and doesn't require free markets.

nicoburns 5y ago
His previous sentence mentions "pure capitalism" which makes the one you quoted make more sense. No one lives in a purely capitalist system, but it is hel up as an ideal. Which is bizarre, as it would be a pretty hellish thing to live under. There's a very good reason why our capitalism is hybridused with democracy and state run services. And attempts since the late 80s/90s to move closer to a purely capitalist system seem to mainly have caused greater inequality and inefficiency.
- ianleeclark 5y ago
  > His previous sentence mentions "pure capitalism" which makes the one you quoted make more sense. I read it as, "why talk about pure capitalism when we're not even in capitalism?" I've seen far more conflation of the two by commenters on HN than not, so maybe that's clouding my reading.
- foxpurple 5y ago
  The more common name for this is Anarco Capitalism. Or ancap. It’s somewhat of a meme on the internet because of how absurd situations become with no government or central police force.
- aaron-santos 5y ago
  Just a definition check. By 'purely capitalist system', does that mean a world where all of the means of production are privately owned eg: the non-existence of worker-owned corps, co-ops, or any government-owned production?

dgb23 5y ago

> Is it just a rhetorical tool? It is an ideology that is used to solidify and concentrate power. "Free trade agreements" that actually lower trade interaction and increase the foothold of multinational corporations in foreign countries to outsource work and avoid taxation. "Competition" for the workers, while large corporations get massive tax cuts, bailouts and lobby for regulations that benefit them and are a burden for SMBs. "Market innovation" that is largely superficial and stands of the shoulders of giants, researchers who are paid by the taxpayer. (I'm being hostile and uncharitable here to get a point across and give some counterweight to the status quo.)

janeroe 5y ago

> Democracies ensure that - politicians will act to ensure the interest of their supporters. Will they? I think they are more like adults promising sweets for breakfast to children if they behave (vote). Not really in their interest if you think about it.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y ago
Supporters =/= voters The supporters are the PACs and special interest lobbying groups exchanging funding for political achievements. Voters are just the marginalized workers whose favor needs to be curried every so often to keep critical analysis of our sociopolitical economic reality in check.

daemin 5y ago

I think Ha-Joon Chang said it best, that a Free Market isn't actually free because every market has rules that the buyers and sellers have to follow for it to function at all.