4 ms·

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

• 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.
    • beaconstudios 5y ago
      > 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. That's true, and I'm glad they do that, though I'm under no pretence that they do it out of altruism or anything like that. Again, it's not that everything is bad under capitalism, but that incentives are aligned badly, and tend towards rent-seeking, exploitation and so on. Good things do still happen when the incentives work out alright. > 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. I didn't set up that dichotomy, I just said that capitalism didn't invent the house. There are alternative models of housing, like housing cooperatives, and historically houses were not built by corporations to put on the market, but by the government, by local workers, by communities etc - there are many historic models of home construction. > Norway or another country and while they do have democratic socialism as a government system, they still employ capitalism as their economic model. This is true (except the part where they're democratic socialist - they're actually social democracies, which is to say capitalism plus strong welfare, but close enough) - but your claim that these countries are the "most capitalist" was incorrect. Typically speaking, more versus less capitalism is an axis of laissez-faire capitalism, which is to say "the most capitalist" would be a neoliberal free market, and "the least capitalist", while still being capitalist, would be a strong social democracy like the Scandinavian model, where capitalism is quite heavily constrained. You might have seen other resources that use these terms differently, but that's what I was thinking. I think there's a few pretty serious issues with capitalism that, left unaddressed, will cause serious material and social harm. Also, I don't think that we can resolve the climate change crisis through pricing in emissions through something like cap and trade. I think we solve it practically through changing how we live, trying to reduce emissions systemically while aiming to maintain or even improve living standards. One example would be mixed land development coupled with better urban transit, to reduce car usage - but both the car lobby and the fossil fuel lobby will block this, due to the nature of regulatory capture (an inherent problem with capitalism). Even switching to EVs doesn't solve the issue of rare earth mining using exploitative labour (eg cobalt mining by child slaves) - because neocolonialism is another problem caused by capitalism. The problem in my mind is that there are few good alternatives or steps forward - 20th century attempts at socialism were a catastrophe. My assumption is that we're just going to charge through climate change headfirst until the environment is ruined beyond repair.
• 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