2 ms·

True. However, there are two points worth making: 1. The purpose of many laws and regulations that support capitalism is to make it very difficult to capture v

True. However, there are two points worth making: 1. The purpose of many laws and regulations that support capitalism is to make it very difficult to capture value without creating it. (When compared to a world without these laws.) 2. It's generally much easier to capture value that you create than to capture value that others create. The result is that there's a massive incentive to create value for others, and a great deal of rich people and organizations are creating value, even if it's not all of them. IMO this is under-appreciated and taken for granted in the modern era, as if it couldn't be any other way.

nicoburns 5y ago
> It's generally much easier to capture value that you create than to capture value that others create. I think that's probably true in general, but that over the course of ~100 years of capitalism the edge cases where this isn't true have been exploited sufficiently that it's starting to become a big problem. The clearest illustration of this being real estate. There are a lot of people getting rich by doing nothing other than buying and holding onto to real estate, often at the expense of others being able to make use of that resource.
- csallen 5y ago
  Homes are interesting to think about. Arguably, every time something is bought in the physical world, it comes at the expense of others being able to make use of that resource, not just homes. So I wouldn't say this is relevant to what makes the housing market exploitative. For example, if I buy a standing desk, I've taken it off the market and you can't buy that exact desk I bought anymore, until I want it sell it. And just like I use my desk most of the time, most property that's purchased is either lived in or rented out. Sure, some properties sit empty, but I think it's the vast minority, I'd guess < 15%. The owners don't get rich by merely holding. They have to actually sell before they make money, which means others are making use of the resource both before the sale (via renting) and at the point of the sale (via becoming the new owners). Plus, many owners do create value via renovations, which makes the property better. But at the very least, you're on the hook as an owner to repair and maintain the quality of the property so it doesn't lose value. You're a steward. That's expensive, and it does create/preserve value. When it comes time to sell, the vast majority of the sale price is just recouping the original amount you paid, anyway. Still, when we look at the profits on top of that, it is true that much of it doesn't come from people working to create value. Houses tend to appreciate in value due to demand outstripping supply, because more people are moving to (or being born into) a location than there are houses being built there. However, I wouldn't call this exploitation. When this dynamic is at hand, everyone sells their homes for a profit by default, no nefarious or exploitative deeds required. Even if you're buying up properties for the express purpose of selling them later, you're not selling them for any more than they would've eventually been sold by the people you bought from. Sure, people are creating rich here without creating value, but they're not doing nefarious things. If there's any villain here, imo it's restricting the housing supply, which fucks with the market's ability to provide more supply and keep prices affordable. IMO there are better examples of nefarious things happening under capitalism. Usually they're monopolistic and anti-competitive: unfair practices to limit supply, to keep competitors out of the market, etc. Buying up patents (artificial monopolies) and then jacking up prices on a drug, for example. Non-competes or unethical collusion between companies to not hire each other's employees. Stuff like that. But it's worth noting that all of this is decided uncapitalistic, because it's anti-competitive. So even these aren't great examples. I'd say the worst aspects of capitalism that are actually capitalistic are… 1. Creating negative public externalities, e.g. polluting rivers to create your products, then reaping the profits privately but making the costs public. There is always incentive to minimize costs in a capitalistic system, and so it's a natural challenge for governments to identify these externalities and make companies pay. 2. Accruing too much power as a result of having money. Basically, the influence of money on the political and legal system. More money should get you a better life in terms of access to more goods and services, but it shouldn't allow you to lobby for laws, win elections, or win court cases. This is a hard problem to solve, however, and therefore a natural disadvantage of capitalism. 3. Serving the rich. It generally pays more to create products and services for rich people, because they have more money to spend. That's just how the physics of capitalism work out. The result is that poor neighborhoods, cities, and countries have worse infrastructure, fewer stores, etc. Innovative companies simply have less incentive to sell there. I think this is intrinsic to capitalism, and it's a problem, because it means the rich get richer.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

nicoburns 5y ago

> It's generally much easier to capture value that you create than to capture value that others create. I think that's probably true in general, but that over the course of ~100 years of capitalism the edge cases where this isn't true have been exploited sufficiently that it's starting to become a big problem. The clearest illustration of this being real estate. There are a lot of people getting rich by doing nothing other than buying and holding onto to real estate, often at the expense of others being able to make use of that resource.

csallen 5y ago
Homes are interesting to think about. Arguably, every time something is bought in the physical world, it comes at the expense of others being able to make use of that resource, not just homes. So I wouldn't say this is relevant to what makes the housing market exploitative. For example, if I buy a standing desk, I've taken it off the market and you can't buy that exact desk I bought anymore, until I want it sell it. And just like I use my desk most of the time, most property that's purchased is either lived in or rented out. Sure, some properties sit empty, but I think it's the vast minority, I'd guess < 15%. The owners don't get rich by merely holding. They have to actually sell before they make money, which means others are making use of the resource both before the sale (via renting) and at the point of the sale (via becoming the new owners). Plus, many owners do create value via renovations, which makes the property better. But at the very least, you're on the hook as an owner to repair and maintain the quality of the property so it doesn't lose value. You're a steward. That's expensive, and it does create/preserve value. When it comes time to sell, the vast majority of the sale price is just recouping the original amount you paid, anyway. Still, when we look at the profits on top of that, it is true that much of it doesn't come from people working to create value. Houses tend to appreciate in value due to demand outstripping supply, because more people are moving to (or being born into) a location than there are houses being built there. However, I wouldn't call this exploitation. When this dynamic is at hand, everyone sells their homes for a profit by default, no nefarious or exploitative deeds required. Even if you're buying up properties for the express purpose of selling them later, you're not selling them for any more than they would've eventually been sold by the people you bought from. Sure, people are creating rich here without creating value, but they're not doing nefarious things. If there's any villain here, imo it's restricting the housing supply, which fucks with the market's ability to provide more supply and keep prices affordable. IMO there are better examples of nefarious things happening under capitalism. Usually they're monopolistic and anti-competitive: unfair practices to limit supply, to keep competitors out of the market, etc. Buying up patents (artificial monopolies) and then jacking up prices on a drug, for example. Non-competes or unethical collusion between companies to not hire each other's employees. Stuff like that. But it's worth noting that all of this is decided uncapitalistic, because it's anti-competitive. So even these aren't great examples. I'd say the worst aspects of capitalism that are actually capitalistic are… 1. Creating negative public externalities, e.g. polluting rivers to create your products, then reaping the profits privately but making the costs public. There is always incentive to minimize costs in a capitalistic system, and so it's a natural challenge for governments to identify these externalities and make companies pay. 2. Accruing too much power as a result of having money. Basically, the influence of money on the political and legal system. More money should get you a better life in terms of access to more goods and services, but it shouldn't allow you to lobby for laws, win elections, or win court cases. This is a hard problem to solve, however, and therefore a natural disadvantage of capitalism. 3. Serving the rich. It generally pays more to create products and services for rich people, because they have more money to spend. That's just how the physics of capitalism work out. The result is that poor neighborhoods, cities, and countries have worse infrastructure, fewer stores, etc. Innovative companies simply have less incentive to sell there. I think this is intrinsic to capitalism, and it's a problem, because it means the rich get richer.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]