6 ms·

I agree that government is needed for the biggest "capital" expenditures. Separate point from the article, which is just more cliche "once we somehow stop belie

I agree that government is needed for the biggest "capital" expenditures. Separate point from the article, which is just more cliche "once we somehow stop believing in the capitalism ideology (and believe in my preferred ideology instead) people will stop being bad and there will be sunshine and rainbows"

Schroedingersat 4y ago
No. It's the same point. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatable with the commons, long term good, managing externalities, or wellbeing for all. If we don't control capital it will continue exactly the same destruction it always has. How we do that and to what extent is an open question, but first we have to acknowledge the reality of problems that markets are the wrong tool for.
- civilized 4y ago
  The mainstream developed country view is to regulate capitalism and have government fund big bets and basic research, not dismiss capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with everything we're supposed to value.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    This is a motte and bailey argument. "Only capatalist countries can stop climate change and they can do it by being not-capitalist just long enough to stem the bleeding" The solution by your own words is to have less capitalism. Which is what everyone else is arguing for.
    - civilized 4y ago
      If anything, the motte-and-bailey shoe seems to be on the other foot from my end. You claim capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with many aspects of human flourishing, then provide as evidence countries which are widely thought to be capitalist (and think of themselves as capitalist), but regulate the capitalism. I don't know if there's a meaningful, concrete difference of views worth discussing here anymore. We both agree capitalism should be regulated and can't make the biggest, riskiest investments society needs. Maybe we could put it this way - is capitalism like arsenic, a useless toxin that the human body shouldn't be exposed to, or is it like iron, something that can be poisonous in excess but also serves a critical function?
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        That would be a valid analogy if it wasn't self-reenforcing to the point where it destroys whatever mechanism of regulation you have, and if any limitations on it weren't attacked by comparing them to failed state capitalist or fascist states and attributing everything good that happend under or in spite of it to capitalism. The broken part is assigning power to power. This has an identical outcome whether you call the nexus of power money or favour of the people's party. Sufficiently regulated capitalism is less like a modern neoliberal system than the USSR or a totalitarian regime. There's no evidence it has done any good that doesn't follow from any other type of industrialisation or access to the fruits of science (it may), but there are a great number of problems it does cause and a number of problems it is fundamentally unsuited for. So more like ethanol -- might do some good, but definitely does a lot of harm if you have too much.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

No. It's the same point. Capitalism is fundamentally incompatable with the commons, long term good, managing externalities, or wellbeing for all. If we don't control capital it will continue exactly the same destruction it always has. How we do that and to what extent is an open question, but first we have to acknowledge the reality of problems that markets are the wrong tool for.

civilized 4y ago
The mainstream developed country view is to regulate capitalism and have government fund big bets and basic research, not dismiss capitalism as fundamentally incompatible with everything we're supposed to value.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  This is a motte and bailey argument. "Only capatalist countries can stop climate change and they can do it by being not-capitalist just long enough to stem the bleeding" The solution by your own words is to have less capitalism. Which is what everyone else is arguing for.
  - civilized 4y ago
    If anything, the motte-and-bailey shoe seems to be on the other foot from my end. You claim capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with many aspects of human flourishing, then provide as evidence countries which are widely thought to be capitalist (and think of themselves as capitalist), but regulate the capitalism. I don't know if there's a meaningful, concrete difference of views worth discussing here anymore. We both agree capitalism should be regulated and can't make the biggest, riskiest investments society needs. Maybe we could put it this way - is capitalism like arsenic, a useless toxin that the human body shouldn't be exposed to, or is it like iron, something that can be poisonous in excess but also serves a critical function?
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      That would be a valid analogy if it wasn't self-reenforcing to the point where it destroys whatever mechanism of regulation you have, and if any limitations on it weren't attacked by comparing them to failed state capitalist or fascist states and attributing everything good that happend under or in spite of it to capitalism. The broken part is assigning power to power. This has an identical outcome whether you call the nexus of power money or favour of the people's party. Sufficiently regulated capitalism is less like a modern neoliberal system than the USSR or a totalitarian regime. There's no evidence it has done any good that doesn't follow from any other type of industrialisation or access to the fruits of science (it may), but there are a great number of problems it does cause and a number of problems it is fundamentally unsuited for. So more like ethanol -- might do some good, but definitely does a lot of harm if you have too much.