7 ms·

>The open source maintainer problem isn’t going to get much better in the near future. >People are gonna keep blaming “Capitalism” for this. Capitalism is gre

>The open source maintainer problem isn’t going to get much better in the near future. >People are gonna keep blaming “Capitalism” for this. Capitalism is great, there really is no need to defend it at every opportunity, especially if no one is attacking it.

beaconstudios 5y ago
great is a relative term. It's much better than feudalism, and certainly better than the most prominent socialisms that've been tried (USSR, China etc). However, it does not align incentives towards the things we think are "good", like maintaining open source software, securing software, etc - so it certainly isn't ideal.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yea I mean nothing is perfect. While capitalism doesn’t lend well to maintaining open source software (which I find to be a surprising comment given that GitHub exists) it does lend well to things like having a house, or being able to save money for retirement, or to creating markets where you get products you want. YC for example has enabled lots of founders to create brand new companies and services we all use. So I would definitely take the bad with the good here. The world’s most capitalist countries also have the highest standards of living (Norway, Sweden, etc.).
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > While capitalism doesn’t lend well to maintaining open source software (which I find to be a surprising comment given that GitHub exists) Github doesn't maintain the open source software they host. > it does lend well to things like having a house Capitalism isn't the originating point of houses though. However, it is the originating point of mortgages, and the massive profits banks draw off of them. I'd say it's a double-edged sword on that front. > The world’s most capitalist countries also have the highest standards of living (Norway, Sweden, etc.). Those countries are social democracies - they invest a lot into welfare and the state. The US is probably the world's most capitalist country, that or South Korea. Both have terrible standards of living for poorer people. Fundamentally, the incentives of capital drive towards maximising profits and minimising costs - everything else is surplus to requirements. I'm not on board with the people who think capitalism is the worst thing ever, but its incentives are pretty bad and it's usually better off mixed with taxes, regulation, nationalisation etc into a mixed economy.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > Github doesn't maintain the open source software they host. Right but they host it. And before Github hosted it and made money doing so we didn't have a great distribution mechanism for open source software. > Capitalism isn't the originating point of houses though. However, it is the originating point of mortgages, and the massive profits banks draw off of them. I'd say it's a double-edged sword on that front It's a hard thing because you also can't just go into the woods and cut down trees and build your own house anymore right? There's no "free property" so the times have changed. Banks might make massive profits on home loans, but at the same time without making a profit you won't give someone a loan for a house. Making a profit isn't really a big issue anyway. The scenario here is not: "get a free house" or "banks make massive profits on houses". So it's a bit of a false dichotomy you've created. > Those countries are social democracies - they invest a lot into welfare and the state. The US is probably the world's most capitalist country, that or South Korea. Both have terrible standards of living for poorer people. > Fundamentally, the incentives of capital drive towards maximising profits and minimising costs - everything else is surplus to requirements. I'm not on board with the people who think capitalism is the worst thing ever, but its incentives are pretty bad and it's usually better off mixed with taxes, regulation, nationalisation etc into a mixed economy. Yea this happens from time to time but people confuse government and economic systems. The US for example is a constitutional republic (or similar idk exactly) and uses the private means of production (capitalism) as its economic system. Take Norway or another country and while they do have democratic socialism as a government system, they still employ capitalism as their economic model. They have a stock market, people own factories or houses, and they sell their labor. And if you do some research (if you're interested) countries like that tend to rate even higher than the US on metrics of things like "the worlds most capitalistic economies", "the most entrepreneurial economies", the most "free economies", etc. I think your comment about regulation and taxes highlights this misunderstanding. Highly capitalist economies (Denmark, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, etc.) have different levels of taxation and for different items, rules and regulations, etc. I think the biggest failure of capitalism (if you'll allow) is that it does very bad with things that can't be or haven't been priced appropriately. We see this with pollution and the environment right now.
      - 5y ago
  - edoceo 5y ago
    Wait. Are Norway and Sweden in the group of "most capitalist"? I thought they also had a bunch of socialized programs. I feel like USA and UK are the top two "most capitalist" countries.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Having social programs doesn't preclude you from being a capitalist country. If it did, the U.S. has medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, food stamps, affordable housing programs, and many others yet we consider it to be highly capitalist. People often confuse political and economic systems (which is fair) because they get tangled together. Both Norway and Sweden are capitalist countries. They have stock markets even. [1][2] At least for me and I'll speak on behalf of others who can correct me but there is great annoyance with "capitalism bad for everything" slogans and phrases precisely because it's more of a lack of functional government (at least in America) than it is private ownership of property or production. You should be able to start and own a business, the government (largely) shouldn't be telling you what you can and can't spend your money on, and entrepreneurship is very valuable and should be promoted and encouraged, not shamed or something you get executed for. -edit- The main difference between Nordic social democracies and a country like the United States is marketing and effectiveness. The U.S. spends an incredible amount of money on social programs. Some groups in the U.S. spend an incredible amount of resources convincing others that government programs are "socialism" and therefore bad. It's a wonder that my older relatives who rail against these programs are the same ones that benefit mostly from them. I always say yea I'm on board we should cut medicare and social security (that they receive) and the conversation changes at that point, though their minds don't. That should tell you something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Stock_Exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Stock_Exchange [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq_Stockholm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq_Stockholm
      - lexapro 5y ago
        >I always say yea I'm on board we should cut medicare and social security You're evil ;)
    - dagw 5y ago
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Government systems don't seem to have any better track record for security. That alone should stop this particular line of argument.
  - helpfulmandrill 5y ago
    "Capitalism" and "government" aren't opposites.
- rajin444 5y ago
  Anything democratic devolves to oligarchy. A monarchy with an effective ruler selection process is probably best. There’s a reason most successful companies have a single CEO with absolute power - and they degrade once this is no longer true. It certainly has a large risk of tyranny though.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    You want to live under a dictatorship? > A monarchy with an effective ruler selection process is probably best. That's called an election.
overthemoon 5y ago
As a marxist, I will certainly concede that hand-wavy diagnoses of "capitalism" with no other analysis or consideration being applied to everything from mental illness to the domination of Marvel films is grating and meaningless.
yakshaving_jgt 5y ago
The author spends time on another forum called Lobsters, which has a fairly pronounced anti-capitalist user base. I think this is where that is coming from.

beaconstudios 5y ago

great is a relative term. It's much better than feudalism, and certainly better than the most prominent socialisms that've been tried (USSR, China etc). However, it does not align incentives towards the things we think are "good", like maintaining open source software, securing software, etc - so it certainly isn't ideal.

ericmay 5y ago
Yea I mean nothing is perfect. While capitalism doesn’t lend well to maintaining open source software (which I find to be a surprising comment given that GitHub exists) it does lend well to things like having a house, or being able to save money for retirement, or to creating markets where you get products you want. YC for example has enabled lots of founders to create brand new companies and services we all use. So I would definitely take the bad with the good here. The world’s most capitalist countries also have the highest standards of living (Norway, Sweden, etc.).
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > While capitalism doesn’t lend well to maintaining open source software (which I find to be a surprising comment given that GitHub exists) Github doesn't maintain the open source software they host. > it does lend well to things like having a house Capitalism isn't the originating point of houses though. However, it is the originating point of mortgages, and the massive profits banks draw off of them. I'd say it's a double-edged sword on that front. > The world’s most capitalist countries also have the highest standards of living (Norway, Sweden, etc.). Those countries are social democracies - they invest a lot into welfare and the state. The US is probably the world's most capitalist country, that or South Korea. Both have terrible standards of living for poorer people. Fundamentally, the incentives of capital drive towards maximising profits and minimising costs - everything else is surplus to requirements. I'm not on board with the people who think capitalism is the worst thing ever, but its incentives are pretty bad and it's usually better off mixed with taxes, regulation, nationalisation etc into a mixed economy.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > Github doesn't maintain the open source software they host. Right but they host it. And before Github hosted it and made money doing so we didn't have a great distribution mechanism for open source software. > Capitalism isn't the originating point of houses though. However, it is the originating point of mortgages, and the massive profits banks draw off of them. I'd say it's a double-edged sword on that front It's a hard thing because you also can't just go into the woods and cut down trees and build your own house anymore right? There's no "free property" so the times have changed. Banks might make massive profits on home loans, but at the same time without making a profit you won't give someone a loan for a house. Making a profit isn't really a big issue anyway. The scenario here is not: "get a free house" or "banks make massive profits on houses". So it's a bit of a false dichotomy you've created. > Those countries are social democracies - they invest a lot into welfare and the state. The US is probably the world's most capitalist country, that or South Korea. Both have terrible standards of living for poorer people. > Fundamentally, the incentives of capital drive towards maximising profits and minimising costs - everything else is surplus to requirements. I'm not on board with the people who think capitalism is the worst thing ever, but its incentives are pretty bad and it's usually better off mixed with taxes, regulation, nationalisation etc into a mixed economy. Yea this happens from time to time but people confuse government and economic systems. The US for example is a constitutional republic (or similar idk exactly) and uses the private means of production (capitalism) as its economic system. Take Norway or another country and while they do have democratic socialism as a government system, they still employ capitalism as their economic model. They have a stock market, people own factories or houses, and they sell their labor. And if you do some research (if you're interested) countries like that tend to rate even higher than the US on metrics of things like "the worlds most capitalistic economies", "the most entrepreneurial economies", the most "free economies", etc. I think your comment about regulation and taxes highlights this misunderstanding. Highly capitalist economies (Denmark, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, etc.) have different levels of taxation and for different items, rules and regulations, etc. I think the biggest failure of capitalism (if you'll allow) is that it does very bad with things that can't be or haven't been priced appropriately. We see this with pollution and the environment right now.
    - 5y ago
- edoceo 5y ago
  Wait. Are Norway and Sweden in the group of "most capitalist"? I thought they also had a bunch of socialized programs. I feel like USA and UK are the top two "most capitalist" countries.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Having social programs doesn't preclude you from being a capitalist country. If it did, the U.S. has medicare, medicaid, welfare, social security, food stamps, affordable housing programs, and many others yet we consider it to be highly capitalist. People often confuse political and economic systems (which is fair) because they get tangled together. Both Norway and Sweden are capitalist countries. They have stock markets even. [1][2] At least for me and I'll speak on behalf of others who can correct me but there is great annoyance with "capitalism bad for everything" slogans and phrases precisely because it's more of a lack of functional government (at least in America) than it is private ownership of property or production. You should be able to start and own a business, the government (largely) shouldn't be telling you what you can and can't spend your money on, and entrepreneurship is very valuable and should be promoted and encouraged, not shamed or something you get executed for. -edit- The main difference between Nordic social democracies and a country like the United States is marketing and effectiveness. The U.S. spends an incredible amount of money on social programs. Some groups in the U.S. spend an incredible amount of resources convincing others that government programs are "socialism" and therefore bad. It's a wonder that my older relatives who rail against these programs are the same ones that benefit mostly from them. I always say yea I'm on board we should cut medicare and social security (that they receive) and the conversation changes at that point, though their minds don't. That should tell you something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Stock_Exchange https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Stock_Exchange [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq_Stockholm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasdaq_Stockholm
    - lexapro 5y ago
      >I always say yea I'm on board we should cut medicare and social security You're evil ;)
  - dagw 5y ago
stickfigure 5y ago
Government systems don't seem to have any better track record for security. That alone should stop this particular line of argument.
- helpfulmandrill 5y ago
  "Capitalism" and "government" aren't opposites.
rajin444 5y ago
Anything democratic devolves to oligarchy. A monarchy with an effective ruler selection process is probably best. There’s a reason most successful companies have a single CEO with absolute power - and they degrade once this is no longer true. It certainly has a large risk of tyranny though.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  You want to live under a dictatorship? > A monarchy with an effective ruler selection process is probably best. That's called an election.

overthemoon 5y ago

As a marxist, I will certainly concede that hand-wavy diagnoses of "capitalism" with no other analysis or consideration being applied to everything from mental illness to the domination of Marvel films is grating and meaningless.

yakshaving_jgt 5y ago

The author spends time on another forum called Lobsters, which has a fairly pronounced anti-capitalist user base. I think this is where that is coming from.