2 ms·

It’s not vague if the other side directly argues against capitalism. Then it means they can be arguing for is likely a command economy, which… yeah. Not going t

It’s not vague if the other side directly argues against capitalism. Then it means they can be arguing for is likely a command economy, which… yeah. Not going to solve anything. Which I am inclined to try to make abundantly clear in such a discussion. But I also disagree with you. “The system” should not reward anyone. People create value, and people reward those who they think provide value by becoming their customers or by investing into their business. Problems arise when this basic mechanic is abused: e.g., market participants lie about the value they create, including through concealment of side-effects (let’s drain the aquifers or dump PFAS into the river and pretend we didn’t know), use other measures than actual value when investing (line goes up so who cares if business is unethical or its business model is fundamentally flawed), etc. Which, again, ultimately comes down to humans trying to secure themselves at the expense of others and the environment.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> It’s not vague if the other side directly argues against capitalism. Then it means they can be arguing for is likely a command economy, which… yeah. Could be feudalism, could be technocracy, could be replacing all limited companies with coops, could be getting rid of publically traded companies and allowing only partnerships. > But I also disagree with you. “The system” should not reward anyone. People create value, and people reward those who they think provide value by becoming their customers or by investing into their business. This is exactly the fantasy-land neoliberalism that got us in the shit to begin with. It anwers none of the important questions of the day - what can be owned as intellectual property, who does it belong to, how long does it last, why is it that academic reseach is paid for by the tax payer but belong to private journals, why is it that when a company accuses someone of theft that the police investigates it at no cost to the company, but if you accuse the company of breaking the law you have to file a lawsuit at your expence. Can you claim compensation when a company sells you a product that is 'environmentally friendly' but turns out they lied? What law breaking puts you in jail, and what law breaking just looses you money. What law breaking is prosecuted by the sate, and what lawbreaking is prosecuted in civil court by claimants. Why is it that stock buybacks were illegal before 1982? Should they be illegal? All of that is 'the system' and absolutely does determine who are the winners and losers.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  What I described is a fundamental mechanic, kind of like “do good stuff and people will do good stuff for you”. All of your questions basically reduce to “what to do if people abuse this mechanic by disguising bad stuff as good, violating trust, hurting the environment, or such?” Well, you can either alleviate the symptom or treat the cause. The only way of treating the cause is working on deep-seated insecurities and psychological trauma that make humans feel motivated to secure themselves at the expense of others and the environment-to abuse this mechanic or facilitate its abuse. The measures that prevent the abuse by restricting the agency of market participants only alleviate symptoms. I don’t know what exactly you mean by “system”. If you are saying the current measures are insufficient, I don’t argue, they could (should) be improved. Still, any set of these measures is never the end in itself, as it doesn’t treat the root cause. If you think restricting agency is the ultimate solution, then we will have to agree to strongly disagree on fundamentals.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

> It’s not vague if the other side directly argues against capitalism. Then it means they can be arguing for is likely a command economy, which… yeah. Could be feudalism, could be technocracy, could be replacing all limited companies with coops, could be getting rid of publically traded companies and allowing only partnerships. > But I also disagree with you. “The system” should not reward anyone. People create value, and people reward those who they think provide value by becoming their customers or by investing into their business. This is exactly the fantasy-land neoliberalism that got us in the shit to begin with. It anwers none of the important questions of the day - what can be owned as intellectual property, who does it belong to, how long does it last, why is it that academic reseach is paid for by the tax payer but belong to private journals, why is it that when a company accuses someone of theft that the police investigates it at no cost to the company, but if you accuse the company of breaking the law you have to file a lawsuit at your expence. Can you claim compensation when a company sells you a product that is 'environmentally friendly' but turns out they lied? What law breaking puts you in jail, and what law breaking just looses you money. What law breaking is prosecuted by the sate, and what lawbreaking is prosecuted in civil court by claimants. Why is it that stock buybacks were illegal before 1982? Should they be illegal? All of that is 'the system' and absolutely does determine who are the winners and losers.

strogonoff 4y ago
What I described is a fundamental mechanic, kind of like “do good stuff and people will do good stuff for you”. All of your questions basically reduce to “what to do if people abuse this mechanic by disguising bad stuff as good, violating trust, hurting the environment, or such?” Well, you can either alleviate the symptom or treat the cause. The only way of treating the cause is working on deep-seated insecurities and psychological trauma that make humans feel motivated to secure themselves at the expense of others and the environment-to abuse this mechanic or facilitate its abuse. The measures that prevent the abuse by restricting the agency of market participants only alleviate symptoms. I don’t know what exactly you mean by “system”. If you are saying the current measures are insufficient, I don’t argue, they could (should) be improved. Still, any set of these measures is never the end in itself, as it doesn’t treat the root cause. If you think restricting agency is the ultimate solution, then we will have to agree to strongly disagree on fundamentals.