3 ms·

However, no more. Modern-day capitalism in America is to flatten the risk curve for people who already have money by borrowing from future generations with debt

However, no more. Modern-day capitalism in America is to flatten the risk curve for people who already have money by borrowing from future generations with debt-fueled bailouts for companies. We have consciously decided to reduce the downside for the wealthy, thereby limiting the upside for future generations. That's modern-day America (and western countries in general), but massive government taxation and borrowing, and spending on bloated, inefficient, and corrupt programs to buy votes and scratch backs won't get more love from "capitalists" than it will from anybody else. It's not capitalism that is going bad, it is government.

malermeister 4y ago
We just had all of the VCs show their ass (including the ones running this very site) by begging Big Government to please step in and bail them out. It's capitalism, not the government.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Again, the system of massive government regulation and taxation, borrowing, and spending programmes is not "capitalism". I don't know what "VCs show their ass", or people asking the government to help them has anything to do with it. Government propping up special interests is pretty anti capitalistic, whether it's a corporation, an unemployed person, or a college student trying to default on their loans.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > Government propping up special interests is pretty anti capitalistic, whether it's a corporation, an unemployed person, or a college student trying to default on their loans. So I am assuming a purely capitalistic system would let the elderly and the disabled die on the street begging for charity? Are you advocating for such a system? Because no thank you, I am good.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      By some peoples' definition of a purely capitalistic system that could be the case. By others, where most people are happy to pay a small and reasonable amount of tax, donation, or general insurance to have some social systems in place, because they can see the benefit and recognize that society is improved for their benefit as well even if they never make use of them directly (and therefore it being somewhat close to if not exactly a voluntary exchange for mutual benefit), it would not necessarily be. I wasn't advocating for anything in these posts by the way, so your rhetorical question is not an argument. Here is one for you though, do you believe that in communist China, Vietnam, USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, etc., that there were no homeless or beggars?
      - kevviiinn 4y ago
        Good question, how many homeless people are there in China right now?
        thrill 4y ago
        Estimates are 3 million Uyghurs are involuntarily in camps right now - but I guess some would call that not being homeless.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        I wonder how many immigrants have been involuntarily in camps in the US? How many Japanese? Your effort at deflecting is adorable
        throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Probably far fewer since implementing many capitalism-inspired reforms than when under a stricter form of communism. Why do you ask?
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        What makes you think that capitalism inspired reforms are responsible when the most capitalistic country has the most homeless people? Do you have any sources for that information?
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  As someone once said, there are no atheists in a foxhole, and no libertarians in a bank run. I've seen this tired argument so many times in last year: you make millions pumping crypto, you're just a genius capitalist and not a regulatory arbitrageur. If you lose money falling for another person's pump and dump, it's the government's fault for not saving you or making you whole. For these people, government only exists to enrich them/save them from the downside, just what this article talks about.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    > As someone once said, there are no atheists in a foxhole, and no libertarians in a bank run. This isn't all that profound though. People can advocate for a policy or structure of society while also acting in their own interests in any given situation. And you will find countless examples of that in any position or belief, whether it is social housing advocates lobbying against cheap housing being built in their neighborhood or climate activists flying their private jets around, or government school and healthcare advocates sending their family to private schools and hospitals.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      > People can advocate for a policy or structure of society while also acting in their own interests in any given situation. And thus we should have a set of rules we agree that is enforced consistently to increase fairness in the system. We can even charge a group of people with that _governing_ duty, and call them something like _government_?
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Considering how much you like to ask these questions I'm surprised you don't like answering them. I don't agree that follows from my statement though, no.

malermeister 4y ago

We just had all of the VCs show their ass (including the ones running this very site) by begging Big Government to please step in and bail them out. It's capitalism, not the government.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Again, the system of massive government regulation and taxation, borrowing, and spending programmes is not "capitalism". I don't know what "VCs show their ass", or people asking the government to help them has anything to do with it. Government propping up special interests is pretty anti capitalistic, whether it's a corporation, an unemployed person, or a college student trying to default on their loans.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  > Government propping up special interests is pretty anti capitalistic, whether it's a corporation, an unemployed person, or a college student trying to default on their loans. So I am assuming a purely capitalistic system would let the elderly and the disabled die on the street begging for charity? Are you advocating for such a system? Because no thank you, I am good.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    By some peoples' definition of a purely capitalistic system that could be the case. By others, where most people are happy to pay a small and reasonable amount of tax, donation, or general insurance to have some social systems in place, because they can see the benefit and recognize that society is improved for their benefit as well even if they never make use of them directly (and therefore it being somewhat close to if not exactly a voluntary exchange for mutual benefit), it would not necessarily be. I wasn't advocating for anything in these posts by the way, so your rhetorical question is not an argument. Here is one for you though, do you believe that in communist China, Vietnam, USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, etc., that there were no homeless or beggars?
    - kevviiinn 4y ago
      Good question, how many homeless people are there in China right now?
      - thrill 4y ago
        Estimates are 3 million Uyghurs are involuntarily in camps right now - but I guess some would call that not being homeless.
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        I wonder how many immigrants have been involuntarily in camps in the US? How many Japanese? Your effort at deflecting is adorable
      - throwawaylinux 4y ago
        Probably far fewer since implementing many capitalism-inspired reforms than when under a stricter form of communism. Why do you ask?
        kevviiinn 4y ago
        What makes you think that capitalism inspired reforms are responsible when the most capitalistic country has the most homeless people? Do you have any sources for that information?
polygamous_bat 4y ago
As someone once said, there are no atheists in a foxhole, and no libertarians in a bank run. I've seen this tired argument so many times in last year: you make millions pumping crypto, you're just a genius capitalist and not a regulatory arbitrageur. If you lose money falling for another person's pump and dump, it's the government's fault for not saving you or making you whole. For these people, government only exists to enrich them/save them from the downside, just what this article talks about.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  > As someone once said, there are no atheists in a foxhole, and no libertarians in a bank run. This isn't all that profound though. People can advocate for a policy or structure of society while also acting in their own interests in any given situation. And you will find countless examples of that in any position or belief, whether it is social housing advocates lobbying against cheap housing being built in their neighborhood or climate activists flying their private jets around, or government school and healthcare advocates sending their family to private schools and hospitals.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    > People can advocate for a policy or structure of society while also acting in their own interests in any given situation. And thus we should have a set of rules we agree that is enforced consistently to increase fairness in the system. We can even charge a group of people with that _governing_ duty, and call them something like _government_?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      Considering how much you like to ask these questions I'm surprised you don't like answering them. I don't agree that follows from my statement though, no.