> 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

> 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.