4 ms·
From a textbook economic perspective you are, of course, correct. And your conclusion that we shouldn't hate the player is also correct! But that doesn't mean
by ke88y 3y ago
From a textbook economic perspective you are, of course, correct. And your conclusion that we shouldn't hate the player is also correct!
But that doesn't mean that we can't hate the game.
Capital-isms and market competition are two very different things.
Currently we have A LOT of capitalism AND very uncompetitive markets.
What we need are competitive markets, and the -isms hawked by the multi-generational holders of Capital be damned. (Which, these days, put far less stress on competition than they typically did in the late 20th century. See: Venture Capital-ists clamoring for regulation in greenfield markets, on the explicit basis that too much competition is dangerous!)
What does this look like? Primarily:
1. Stronger anti-trust laws,
2. more anti-trust enforcement,
3. assurance that labor markets are efficient,
4. lowering the barriers to entry for new competition, and
5. substantially shifting the tax burden in the meantime.
- mrguyorama 3y agoNobody is ever forced to "play the game" so you absolutely SHOULD hate the player. They are choosing the play a game that hurts others and rewards them.
- ke88y 3y agoHating holders of capital isn't effective, either rhetorically or as a policy motivator, at least in the west, at least for now. I mean this in the descriptive sense, not as a moral or personal opinion. Stronger anti-trust, stronger worker's rights, more equitable ownership of firms/real property/capital, etc. -- none of this requires hate, and most of it is actually entirely consistent with the bedrock principles of late 20th century Capital-isms.
- mrguyorama 3y agoFunny, because the way the US got most of it's worker rights and protections was pretty violent strikes in the early 1900s. It used to be reasonable for your union to have arms, and be shot at by the pinkertons. Employers, I don't care why, choose to do whatever it takes to keep me paid poorly and without power, and not hating that is just pathetic.
- ke88y 3y agoI'm describing the USA today, not the USA at the time of the Homestead strike.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago> Currently we have A LOT of capitalism AND very uncompetitive markets. I've been bemoaning lately the degree to which we ('ordinary folks' as they say) are essentially shut out of whole industries. Want to open a grocery store and go against the local Kroger? A drug store and go against the local CVS? A hardware store and go against the local Lowe's? I think the only way I can get into the new-car dealership aristocracy here in LOCAL_TOWN_USA is to marry into it. Restaurants, nail salons, small trades, franchisee.... It's good that they left us a few scraps I guess.
- ke88y 3y agoNormally technology, wars, and revolutions are the only ways that these massive aristocracies are disrupted. And even then, many hold on. I do not see a path toward technological upheaval. If anything, exactly the opposite. E-commerce proved to be winner-take-most, and for anything in the real economy it's yet another significant capital input required to compete. I think the next 100 years will prove to be a real stress test of the "elections not revolutions" hypothesis regarding representative democracy. Both Europe and the USA failed the last several attempts at peaceful major social upheaval, so I'm unfortunately not holding my breath...