3 ms·

Capitalism is inherently decentralized. Even just currency lets you separate production and consumption in time and space, which decentralized trade. Writing, e

Capitalism is inherently decentralized. Even just currency lets you separate production and consumption in time and space, which decentralized trade. Writing, even with manual copies but certainly with the printing press, decentralized learning to great effect.

bmitc 4y ago
In theory. The wealth gap and inequality would say otherwise. The percentage of people who own as much as the bottom 60% is in the sub thousandths of a percentage. It’s so small I can’t remember the amount of zeros after the decimal point.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  "Decentralized" is not synonymous with "equal" or "optimal".
  - bmitc 4y ago
    That wasn't my point. The lack of equality means that the very few make all the decisions in this "decentralized" capitalism. The decisions that control and influence capitalism are highly centralized among a comparatively small group.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      It sounds like you're just saying it's a winner-takes-all system. That's not inconsistent with decentralized decisionmaking. It's a virtue vs consequentialism thing - you can either maximize the amount of decentralization produced, which often requires some centralization to defeat network effects, or you can build systems that act in decentralized ways, which commonly leads to centralization of power due to winner-takes-all effects. Compare recently how the decentralized nature of the internet led to centralization of services.
- macinjosh 4y ago
  Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Inequality is clearly a problem but at least way more people have basic necessities and modern conveniences than at any point in history. Capitalism isn't perfect but it is immensely more positive than anything else that has been tried.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    > but at least way more people have basic necessities and modern conveniences than at any point in history Maybe, but that's just because of the scale of our population. By the same token, more people are considered starving today than there were people even alive just around 200 years ago.

bmitc 4y ago

In theory. The wealth gap and inequality would say otherwise. The percentage of people who own as much as the bottom 60% is in the sub thousandths of a percentage. It’s so small I can’t remember the amount of zeros after the decimal point.

FeepingCreature 4y ago
"Decentralized" is not synonymous with "equal" or "optimal".
- bmitc 4y ago
  That wasn't my point. The lack of equality means that the very few make all the decisions in this "decentralized" capitalism. The decisions that control and influence capitalism are highly centralized among a comparatively small group.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    It sounds like you're just saying it's a winner-takes-all system. That's not inconsistent with decentralized decisionmaking. It's a virtue vs consequentialism thing - you can either maximize the amount of decentralization produced, which often requires some centralization to defeat network effects, or you can build systems that act in decentralized ways, which commonly leads to centralization of power due to winner-takes-all effects. Compare recently how the decentralized nature of the internet led to centralization of services.
macinjosh 4y ago
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Inequality is clearly a problem but at least way more people have basic necessities and modern conveniences than at any point in history. Capitalism isn't perfect but it is immensely more positive than anything else that has been tried.
- bmitc 4y ago
  > but at least way more people have basic necessities and modern conveniences than at any point in history Maybe, but that's just because of the scale of our population. By the same token, more people are considered starving today than there were people even alive just around 200 years ago.