5 ms·

There is no rule in capitalism that says you have to optimize for capital accumulation over any other goal. There is not even an evaluation function, people can

There is no rule in capitalism that says you have to optimize for capital accumulation over any other goal. There is not even an evaluation function, people can choose their own values.

beaconstudios 5y ago
Capitalism rewards and thus incentivises such behaviour though. Rich people have more freedom and power than poor people.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  That would be true in any system, for example strong people have more power than weak people, intelligent people would have more "freedom of thought" than stupid people, ruling politicians would have more power, and so on. In capitalism however, you only have power if you give people something they want. In socialism for example, being "rich" would just mean being a part of the ruling elite, but you would still have people who are "rich" and have more power than others. And nothing in capitalism says you have to value buying a yacht higher than anything else. There is also no rule that says capitalism should have no laws whatsoever. Power is also a good thing, for example being able to cure cancer or feed people is a power.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Natural power imbalances are fine, I don't advocate for the world of Harrison Bergeron. Ruling politicians and wealthy people are not natural power imbalances. Power is something you have over another person, ie the ability to violate their preferences. That's an inherent negative. Presumably the power to cure cancer is something the patient would consent to, and thus not the kind of power I'm talking about. Capitalism has led to the kind of voluntary transactions where child slaves are paid just enough to not starve so that mining companies can extract cobalt to sell to electronics manufacturers. While the idea of voluntary transactions sounds nice in the small, it plays out pretty badly writ large.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Most of what you say is just leftist framing, like power being a bad thing, and mining companies paying minimum pay to make people dependent. That is completely backwards. You pay people because you need something they can give you (their work force, or something they own or make or whatever). If wages are low it is because of supply and demand. If you demand people should be paid more, their jobs might go away completely and they would be poorer than before. As for wealthy people being not natural, as I said, usually you become wealthy by giving people something they want or need. That is the best thing to reward in a society. What do you mean by "natural power imbalances", like somebody having more muscles than others? Then why can't you imagine that some are better businessmen than others, too? Was Steve Jobs just an evil guy becoming rich by exploiting his employees, or did he become rich because he made the world a better place for billions of people? Would the world have been better if Steve Jobs had been shot down at an early stage to give somebody else a "fair chance" in his place?
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        Ugh, I'm getting real tired of this thread, having to explain left wing arguments that are freely available to read. Just, if you want to understand what I'm saying, at least give Das Kapital a read. It lays out some of the basic arguments.
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The refutations of leftist ideologies are also freely available to read. It rather seems you have run out of arguments. Marxism wasn't a success story in the real world, either.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        I haven't run out of arguments, just time to constantly refute libertarian ones. Like thinking the USSR and Maoist China were somehow good examples of Marxism when all their ideas were taken from Lenin, but whatever - I feel my point about libertarians was sufficiently proven.
imtringued 5y ago
If there is one thing that Marx was right about it is that once the accumulation of capital ends, capitalism itself breaks down. Just listen to all the people kicking and screaming that interest rates should be increased or that 0% interest rates are wrong and negative interest rates (which represent decentralization of capital) shouldn't even exist. There are consumer protection offices advocating that accounts shouldn't be charged negative interest rates even though it only applies to accounts with more than 100k€ in checking accounts. Imagine the horror of getting a certificate of deposit for one whole month. Instead, some banks have decided to just charge monthly fees which is incredibly regressive because you would need 25k€ in your account to exceed the monthly fee at -0.5%. Meanwhile if you have millions on your account you pay the same fee, ah yes, subsidize the rich.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  I don't think capitalism was at risk of breaking down from the banking fees.

There is no rule in capitalism that says you have to optimize for capital accumulation over any other goal. There is not even an evaluation function, people can choose their own values.

beaconstudios 5y ago

Capitalism rewards and thus incentivises such behaviour though. Rich people have more freedom and power than poor people.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
That would be true in any system, for example strong people have more power than weak people, intelligent people would have more "freedom of thought" than stupid people, ruling politicians would have more power, and so on. In capitalism however, you only have power if you give people something they want. In socialism for example, being "rich" would just mean being a part of the ruling elite, but you would still have people who are "rich" and have more power than others. And nothing in capitalism says you have to value buying a yacht higher than anything else. There is also no rule that says capitalism should have no laws whatsoever. Power is also a good thing, for example being able to cure cancer or feed people is a power.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  Natural power imbalances are fine, I don't advocate for the world of Harrison Bergeron. Ruling politicians and wealthy people are not natural power imbalances. Power is something you have over another person, ie the ability to violate their preferences. That's an inherent negative. Presumably the power to cure cancer is something the patient would consent to, and thus not the kind of power I'm talking about. Capitalism has led to the kind of voluntary transactions where child slaves are paid just enough to not starve so that mining companies can extract cobalt to sell to electronics manufacturers. While the idea of voluntary transactions sounds nice in the small, it plays out pretty badly writ large.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Most of what you say is just leftist framing, like power being a bad thing, and mining companies paying minimum pay to make people dependent. That is completely backwards. You pay people because you need something they can give you (their work force, or something they own or make or whatever). If wages are low it is because of supply and demand. If you demand people should be paid more, their jobs might go away completely and they would be poorer than before. As for wealthy people being not natural, as I said, usually you become wealthy by giving people something they want or need. That is the best thing to reward in a society. What do you mean by "natural power imbalances", like somebody having more muscles than others? Then why can't you imagine that some are better businessmen than others, too? Was Steve Jobs just an evil guy becoming rich by exploiting his employees, or did he become rich because he made the world a better place for billions of people? Would the world have been better if Steve Jobs had been shot down at an early stage to give somebody else a "fair chance" in his place?
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Ugh, I'm getting real tired of this thread, having to explain left wing arguments that are freely available to read. Just, if you want to understand what I'm saying, at least give Das Kapital a read. It lays out some of the basic arguments.
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        The refutations of leftist ideologies are also freely available to read. It rather seems you have run out of arguments. Marxism wasn't a success story in the real world, either.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        I haven't run out of arguments, just time to constantly refute libertarian ones. Like thinking the USSR and Maoist China were somehow good examples of Marxism when all their ideas were taken from Lenin, but whatever - I feel my point about libertarians was sufficiently proven.

imtringued 5y ago

If there is one thing that Marx was right about it is that once the accumulation of capital ends, capitalism itself breaks down. Just listen to all the people kicking and screaming that interest rates should be increased or that 0% interest rates are wrong and negative interest rates (which represent decentralization of capital) shouldn't even exist. There are consumer protection offices advocating that accounts shouldn't be charged negative interest rates even though it only applies to accounts with more than 100k€ in checking accounts. Imagine the horror of getting a certificate of deposit for one whole month. Instead, some banks have decided to just charge monthly fees which is incredibly regressive because you would need 25k€ in your account to exceed the monthly fee at -0.5%. Meanwhile if you have millions on your account you pay the same fee, ah yes, subsidize the rich.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
I don't think capitalism was at risk of breaking down from the banking fees.