6 ms·

If Chomsky’s solutions are bunk, what is the value of his argument? See also: the last 250 years of economic history.

Ma8ee 5y ago
And 250 years of economic history shows that unhindered capitalism is a disaster. The only reason capitalism appears so so successful is because it has been balanced with more progressive policies.
- wahnfrieden 5y ago
  And massive corporate welfare
- Lord_Baltimore 5y ago
  "Unhindered capitalism" "it has been balanced with more progressive policies." That doesn't sound like unhindered capitalism.
  - Ma8ee 5y ago
    Times when capitalism has been unhindered have led to market crashes, galloping inequality and depressions. Times when capitalism has been balanced with progressive policies have led to stability and growth, not only for the already rich.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      So that sounds like a mixed economy is best where capitalism provides the growth and progressive policies counter balance the bad tendencies.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        That's certainly a respectable opinion, yes, but some believe that these progressive policies are only possible temporarily or in countries that use various legal and kinetic means to maintain an advantage over other countries, etc..., so it's not a settled question that social democracy is the end of history.
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        I think the trouble other folks are having with your prior comment was that there has never been an "Unhindered capitalism" anywhere on Earth within the last several hundred years. Religious, societal, political, etc., factors beyond, and in addition to capitalism, have always held significant sway in any society that has been realized so far.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        Capitalism is to be understood as a political economy, not as some abstract economic-only concept that is impossible. A political economy is more capitalist in so far as private ownership of capital faces fewer restrictions and insofar as power is correlated to political ownership. Like all political systems, there are practical limits, but a system in which the power of capital is unrestrained and where very few restrictions to capital ownership exist can be called "unhindered capitalism", and these certainly existed.
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        So by "unhindered capitalism" you mean “partially-hindered capitalism”?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        No, I mean unhindered capitalism, capitalism being a real political economy rather than the impossible to define purely economical conception of capitalism. Capitalism is not just an economic system, it has necessary political implication, such as a strong state, an active police force, a class system, etc...
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        Why would you assign 100% of the ‘real political economy’ to capitalism, given the very obvious existence of non-capitalist forces that exist in the ‘real political economy’?
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. That basically always heads into less interesting discussion. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443079.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

And 250 years of economic history shows that unhindered capitalism is a disaster. The only reason capitalism appears so so successful is because it has been balanced with more progressive policies.

wahnfrieden 5y ago
And massive corporate welfare
Lord_Baltimore 5y ago
"Unhindered capitalism" "it has been balanced with more progressive policies." That doesn't sound like unhindered capitalism.
- Ma8ee 5y ago
  Times when capitalism has been unhindered have led to market crashes, galloping inequality and depressions. Times when capitalism has been balanced with progressive policies have led to stability and growth, not only for the already rich.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    So that sounds like a mixed economy is best where capitalism provides the growth and progressive policies counter balance the bad tendencies.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      That's certainly a respectable opinion, yes, but some believe that these progressive policies are only possible temporarily or in countries that use various legal and kinetic means to maintain an advantage over other countries, etc..., so it's not a settled question that social democracy is the end of history.
      - MichaelZuo 5y ago
        I think the trouble other folks are having with your prior comment was that there has never been an "Unhindered capitalism" anywhere on Earth within the last several hundred years. Religious, societal, political, etc., factors beyond, and in addition to capitalism, have always held significant sway in any society that has been realized so far.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        Capitalism is to be understood as a political economy, not as some abstract economic-only concept that is impossible. A political economy is more capitalist in so far as private ownership of capital faces fewer restrictions and insofar as power is correlated to political ownership. Like all political systems, there are practical limits, but a system in which the power of capital is unrestrained and where very few restrictions to capital ownership exist can be called "unhindered capitalism", and these certainly existed.
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        So by "unhindered capitalism" you mean “partially-hindered capitalism”?
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        No, I mean unhindered capitalism, capitalism being a real political economy rather than the impossible to define purely economical conception of capitalism. Capitalism is not just an economic system, it has necessary political implication, such as a strong state, an active police force, a class system, etc...
        MichaelZuo 5y ago
        Why would you assign 100% of the ‘real political economy’ to capitalism, given the very obvious existence of non-capitalist forces that exist in the ‘real political economy’?

dang 5y ago

Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. That basically always heads into less interesting discussion. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=generic%20ideolog%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor... https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443079 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28443079.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]