3 ms·
Consider: Option 1: the definition of "capitalism" requires that zero regulation be applied. In that case, abandon "capitalism" and replace it with whatever yo
by catach 4y ago
Consider:
Option 1: the definition of "capitalism" requires that zero regulation be applied. In that case, abandon "capitalism" and replace it with whatever you'd call the same model but with regulation.
Option 2: a significant amount of regulation actually is enough alone to fatally destabilize capitalism. I do not believe this to be the case, but if it were, then it should very likely be abandoned, but it's difficult to know how other options might behave in this hypothetical universe.
- feet 4y agoI would argue that capitalism is exactly what the American system is. These terms are descriptive rather than prescriptive.
- catach 4y agoThat's certainly a model one could use, but it strikes me as not particularly useful.
- feet 4y agoClaiming lofty ideology is not useful because those policies never exist in real life
- catach 4y agoIncreased precision in base concepts makes it easier to measure and reason about the real-world drift from those bases.
- feet 4y agoThat's assuming that those bases are even the goal for the people implementing the policies, which I am not convinced is the case in the US. If that is not the assumption then we can just make arbitrary claims about anything and calculate "drift"
- catach 4y agoI'm looking at this from an economics study view, not a public policy view. Definitions have an inherently arbitrary component, sure. But stable, precise definitions are far easier to reason with than a shifting definition like "whatever the US is doing right now".