6 ms·

From the Investopedia article on Capitalism: "Another drawback of capitalism is that it often leads to a host of negative externalities, such as air and noise

From the Investopedia article on Capitalism: "Another drawback of capitalism is that it often leads to a host of negative externalities, such as air and noise pollution. Negative externalities are costs paid for by society and not the producer of the externality. A factory dumping waste into a river or emitting smoke into the air is a problem shouldered by the communities that the factory is in, and not the business itself."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
r3trohack3r 4y ago
I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. I'm not suggesting that negative externalities aren't a thing under capitalism. I'm suggesting parent's definition of capitalism is incorrect. When you define capitalism as a free exchange of goods and services centered around private property, you can see how that quote is misleading at best. Current humans, on average, place disproportionate value on the things that directly impact them. When they enter into trade under capitalism, they carry that bias with them. This leads to outcomes where individuals (the business in that example) make a decision to improve their standing by dumping waste into a river. But this isn't a shortcoming in capitalism, it's a shortcoming in human nature. In order for your counter to be complete, you'd need to provide an example of another economic/governing system that humans organize under successfully avoiding those negative externalities. Without that, I don't understand how humans would avoid falling into the same traps under different structures. For example, your quote tells me nothing about how a central planning board under communism responsible for agriculture wouldn't decide to let pesticide run off into a water source in order to deliver the crop yield expected of them. That board is still comprised of humans who are carrying their biases into their interactions. Right now, at best, my understanding from this conversation is "humans do this under capitalism, therefor humans do this because of capitalism" which isn't a compelling argument.
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  > In order for your counter to be complete, you'd need to provide an example of another economic/governing system that humans organize under successfully avoiding those negative externalities. That's a text-book whataboutism. You can't just dismiss the inherent problems with capitalism by just pointing out that other systems have the same or even different problems. That's not the point here. So no, nobody needs to point out a better system. > For example, your quote tells me nothing about how a central planning board under communism [...] Tell me you don't know what communism is without telling me you don't know what communism is. > Right now, at best, my understanding from this conversation is Yes, you're entirely missing the point because you're trying to defend your world view. Somebody points out a problem with capitalism and your first reflex is "well communism is bad too", which tells me all I need to know about your motivation: 0% intellectual honesty and 100% crony belief. So here's what the actual point of the conversation is: "Capitalism encourages people doing this, that is a problem" There is no "because", there is no "as opposed to" and there is no "therefore", simply the statement of a problem. One person might see the solution in replacing capitalism with communism, another might suggest imposing additional restrictions on it. But right now, we're just talking about acknowledging a problem instead of completely shutting down and crying about how it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault...
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    > But right now, we're just talking about acknowledging a problem instead of completely shutting down and crying about how it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault... No one is doing this. It seems impossible for you to avoid mischaracterise what's being said, so I think it's best to leave this.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
      > No one is doing this. Except me, in my first comment, which started this conversation in the first place. Stop trying to convince me of what I'm arguing about, it only makes you look even more like you have no clue about the topic.
- anotherman554 4y ago
  "But this isn't a shortcoming in capitalism, it's a shortcoming in human nature." If you can't get wealthy dumping waste into a river under a different economic system the incentive is gone and it shouldn't happen. "I'm suggesting parent's definition of capitalism is incorrect." Maybe, but you made up a definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not defined as a free exchange of gods. Definitions vary but most of the definitions talk about profit as a motive. Your folksy definition leaves out things like ownership of the means of production, capital and labor. At any rate, your argument amounts to "I declare discussion of capitalism to be limited to this definition I made up." Encouraging people to argue what words mean in the dictionary just seems like derailment.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

r3trohack3r 4y ago

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. I'm not suggesting that negative externalities aren't a thing under capitalism. I'm suggesting parent's definition of capitalism is incorrect. When you define capitalism as a free exchange of goods and services centered around private property, you can see how that quote is misleading at best. Current humans, on average, place disproportionate value on the things that directly impact them. When they enter into trade under capitalism, they carry that bias with them. This leads to outcomes where individuals (the business in that example) make a decision to improve their standing by dumping waste into a river. But this isn't a shortcoming in capitalism, it's a shortcoming in human nature. In order for your counter to be complete, you'd need to provide an example of another economic/governing system that humans organize under successfully avoiding those negative externalities. Without that, I don't understand how humans would avoid falling into the same traps under different structures. For example, your quote tells me nothing about how a central planning board under communism responsible for agriculture wouldn't decide to let pesticide run off into a water source in order to deliver the crop yield expected of them. That board is still comprised of humans who are carrying their biases into their interactions. Right now, at best, my understanding from this conversation is "humans do this under capitalism, therefor humans do this because of capitalism" which isn't a compelling argument.

DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
> In order for your counter to be complete, you'd need to provide an example of another economic/governing system that humans organize under successfully avoiding those negative externalities. That's a text-book whataboutism. You can't just dismiss the inherent problems with capitalism by just pointing out that other systems have the same or even different problems. That's not the point here. So no, nobody needs to point out a better system. > For example, your quote tells me nothing about how a central planning board under communism [...] Tell me you don't know what communism is without telling me you don't know what communism is. > Right now, at best, my understanding from this conversation is Yes, you're entirely missing the point because you're trying to defend your world view. Somebody points out a problem with capitalism and your first reflex is "well communism is bad too", which tells me all I need to know about your motivation: 0% intellectual honesty and 100% crony belief. So here's what the actual point of the conversation is: "Capitalism encourages people doing this, that is a problem" There is no "because", there is no "as opposed to" and there is no "therefore", simply the statement of a problem. One person might see the solution in replacing capitalism with communism, another might suggest imposing additional restrictions on it. But right now, we're just talking about acknowledging a problem instead of completely shutting down and crying about how it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault...
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > But right now, we're just talking about acknowledging a problem instead of completely shutting down and crying about how it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault it's not capitalism's fault... No one is doing this. It seems impossible for you to avoid mischaracterise what's being said, so I think it's best to leave this.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    > No one is doing this. Except me, in my first comment, which started this conversation in the first place. Stop trying to convince me of what I'm arguing about, it only makes you look even more like you have no clue about the topic.
anotherman554 4y ago
"But this isn't a shortcoming in capitalism, it's a shortcoming in human nature." If you can't get wealthy dumping waste into a river under a different economic system the incentive is gone and it shouldn't happen. "I'm suggesting parent's definition of capitalism is incorrect." Maybe, but you made up a definition of capitalism. Capitalism is not defined as a free exchange of gods. Definitions vary but most of the definitions talk about profit as a motive. Your folksy definition leaves out things like ownership of the means of production, capital and labor. At any rate, your argument amounts to "I declare discussion of capitalism to be limited to this definition I made up." Encouraging people to argue what words mean in the dictionary just seems like derailment.