4 ms·
Capitalism is such an overused term. I like to say I prefer a system where prices are fully reflective of realities (health and safety, pollution, working condi
by lordnacho 5y ago
Capitalism is such an overused term. I like to say I prefer a system where prices are fully reflective of realities (health and safety, pollution, working conditions), and people can more or less transact as they please. This still leaves a lot of room for debate of course.
But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost, rather than people being too free to deal. My guess is that a lot of people actually feel the same way, regardless of whether they identify as a leftie or a rightie.
One thing about the world as it is now is that you see nearly nothing of how the sausage is made. We know what we're consuming, but it's rare to understand how it go to your house. Were pesticides used to grow your food? Did the cow suffer when it was slaughtered? Did the guy who drove your stuff across the country have to shit in a bag? What about the white collar guy who flies around to meetings all the time, does he see his kids during the week? The sports star who makes millions, does he suffer from relentless pressure?
Some of the most rewarding experiences involve relationships with other people. We have this transactional economy where you walk into a shop and someone gives you food and you leave, but one of my favourite things to do is actually talking to shopkeeper. How is business, how does it work, what are your thoughts on things? I'm friends with a number of people whose shops I wandered into and have since kept in touch with. That could be called capitalism too, but we tend to associate the term with an uncaring sort of brutal dystopia if we're a leftie, or a kind of necessary evil if we're a rightie. YMMV of course, as I mentioned the term means a lot of things to a lot of people.
- js8 5y ago> and people can more or less transact as they please Capitalism and free market are not the same thing. In capitalism, the labor is a commodity sold on a free market and significant amount of capital is privately owned. Either of these can be considered morally wrong even if we otherwise accept the premise of the free markets. Can people transact "as they please" if huge chunks of economy are already owned by a very small minority? I don't think so. It seems to me (which is also pretty much basic Marx) that there is a contradiction between "transact as you please" and large scale private ownership. > But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost Yeah, economic externalities. But isn't that, again, the consequence of people "transacting as they please"? Some people will simply think in the short term. What time horizon is gonna win in pricing, if people "transact as they please"?
- lordnacho 5y agoAll fair questions, answer is that there's no answer. We have to have a system of looking at things as they come up and deciding what we think makes sense.