5 ms·

Nope, they are in bed with the government in a highly regulated industry. Capitalism is the absence of government control and the free exchange of good and serv

Nope, they are in bed with the government in a highly regulated industry. Capitalism is the absence of government control and the free exchange of good and services.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
piva00 3y ago
Capitalism does not imply absence of government control... That's one ideological extreme branch of capitalism, don't conflate them.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I think the confusion here is capitalism vs free markets. They're pretty darn similar at first glance, but the absence of government control is only a feature of free markets [1] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-difference-between-capitalist-system-and-free-market-system.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-differe...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    A market free of government control is an abstract concept. All actual markets, even the free ones, experience a variety of government controls. Some more, some less, and of different kinds depending on the political, economic and social situation they are embedded in.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      markets existed before government via free association
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        very much subject to debate. depends a lot on what "markets" means and what "government" means.
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        Government is very easy to define, a system of social control for which a group or entity is given the exclusive authority to use violence to enforce that control Thus there are no voluntary governments, as if everyone agree to something no force is required, and all government actions are enforced via the threat of violence
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. It also shows all the hallmarks of an over-reliance on the internet-provided definition of a government (which of course pats itself on the back of seeing what all those silly academics couldn't see). I mean, for goodness sake, just a quick browse of Graeber & Wengrow will reveal many forms of societies' arrangements for collective decision making that violate your description (in part because your description is about enforcement, which some societies eschew, and fails to deal with collection decision making at all).
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        >>This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. This would then imply that all collective social arrangements of people must be called "government" and that any definition of "government" that does not include every possible social arrangement of people is flawed I reject this over broad assertion, when we attempt to broaden the definition of words to that degree they lose all value in meaningful conversation as the word now means anything. These seems to be common in modern times something that should be resisted
        3y ago
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      You can debate that with investopedia if you think their definition is inaccurate, but I've never seen a definition of free markets that builds in a requirement for government controls. Functionally we have few, if any, modern examples of free markets but the same goes for communism. Practically we never really implement either concept and we erroneously call what we do implement by this names, but that doesn't change the original idea or definition.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        It's not about the definition, it's about reality. The reality is that markets free of all regulation have all sorts of problems, and so in order to keep them functional and retain (almost all of) the benefits of "free markets", the participants invite/consent/tolerate the "intrusion" of government. It doesn't really matter if that is a part of the definition or not.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        Sure I totally agree we don't actually implement free markets, whether right or wrong we decided they are too idealistic and some level of regulation is important. That just means we don't have free markets though, not that the definition of a free market should be changed to match what we have. It's the same problem with communism. No country has actually implemented Marxism or communism, we only have countries ruled by oligarchs and/or monarchs that call themselves communist because it sounds better. I'm not saying I think communism would work, but we've yet to see it actually tried at the state level.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Free markets, in the original Smithian definition, require extensive government influence to keep the market free for new participants to enter and make opportunities for themselves. This means quashing bad actors including monopolists and other actors who seek to distort the market in drastic ways.
    - flagrant_taco 3y ago
      Free markets don't require any intervention, we choose to modify the model and have a free-ish market because we ultimately don't trust those invoked long term. That isn't the conceptual design though, ideally a free market handles monopolies on its own when customers simply walk away from the bad actor.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Maybe you're just choosing not to read my comment and steamroll what I said. I can't tell. Adam Smith, the guy who defined the term "free market", defined it as I described, not as you have attempted to retcon.
        flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I'm not trying to steamroll you, I just disagree. I can't find a source defining free markets as requiring government intervention, I'd be really curious to e one of you have it. Adam Smith didn't think government intervention was necessary, as best I recall. He described what he called the invisible hand, but that is the natural market forces of self-interested parties not government control. I copy/paste a quote from Investopedia right now for some reason, but Smith described his opinion of the tiles of government and it specifically didn't include controlling the free market https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/ https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-na...
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  capitalism relies on government to establish and enforce private property ownership/enclosure
sumuyuda 3y ago
State capitalism exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

Nope, they are in bed with the government in a highly regulated industry. Capitalism is the absence of government control and the free exchange of good and services.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

piva00 3y ago

Capitalism does not imply absence of government control... That's one ideological extreme branch of capitalism, don't conflate them.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
I think the confusion here is capitalism vs free markets. They're pretty darn similar at first glance, but the absence of government control is only a feature of free markets [1] [1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-difference-between-capitalist-system-and-free-market-system.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/what-differe...
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  A market free of government control is an abstract concept. All actual markets, even the free ones, experience a variety of government controls. Some more, some less, and of different kinds depending on the political, economic and social situation they are embedded in.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    markets existed before government via free association
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      very much subject to debate. depends a lot on what "markets" means and what "government" means.
      - phpisthebest 3y ago
        Government is very easy to define, a system of social control for which a group or entity is given the exclusive authority to use violence to enforce that control Thus there are no voluntary governments, as if everyone agree to something no force is required, and all government actions are enforced via the threat of violence
        PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
        This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. It also shows all the hallmarks of an over-reliance on the internet-provided definition of a government (which of course pats itself on the back of seeing what all those silly academics couldn't see). I mean, for goodness sake, just a quick browse of Graeber & Wengrow will reveal many forms of societies' arrangements for collective decision making that violate your description (in part because your description is about enforcement, which some societies eschew, and fails to deal with collection decision making at all).
        phpisthebest 3y ago
        >>This is simplistic and fails to cover all the arrangements that one might one to call a government. This would then imply that all collective social arrangements of people must be called "government" and that any definition of "government" that does not include every possible social arrangement of people is flawed I reject this over broad assertion, when we attempt to broaden the definition of words to that degree they lose all value in meaningful conversation as the word now means anything. These seems to be common in modern times something that should be resisted
        3y ago
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    You can debate that with investopedia if you think their definition is inaccurate, but I've never seen a definition of free markets that builds in a requirement for government controls. Functionally we have few, if any, modern examples of free markets but the same goes for communism. Practically we never really implement either concept and we erroneously call what we do implement by this names, but that doesn't change the original idea or definition.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      It's not about the definition, it's about reality. The reality is that markets free of all regulation have all sorts of problems, and so in order to keep them functional and retain (almost all of) the benefits of "free markets", the participants invite/consent/tolerate the "intrusion" of government. It doesn't really matter if that is a part of the definition or not.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        Sure I totally agree we don't actually implement free markets, whether right or wrong we decided they are too idealistic and some level of regulation is important. That just means we don't have free markets though, not that the definition of a free market should be changed to match what we have. It's the same problem with communism. No country has actually implemented Marxism or communism, we only have countries ruled by oligarchs and/or monarchs that call themselves communist because it sounds better. I'm not saying I think communism would work, but we've yet to see it actually tried at the state level.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Free markets, in the original Smithian definition, require extensive government influence to keep the market free for new participants to enter and make opportunities for themselves. This means quashing bad actors including monopolists and other actors who seek to distort the market in drastic ways.
  - flagrant_taco 3y ago
    Free markets don't require any intervention, we choose to modify the model and have a free-ish market because we ultimately don't trust those invoked long term. That isn't the conceptual design though, ideally a free market handles monopolies on its own when customers simply walk away from the bad actor.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Maybe you're just choosing not to read my comment and steamroll what I said. I can't tell. Adam Smith, the guy who defined the term "free market", defined it as I described, not as you have attempted to retcon.
      - flagrant_taco 3y ago
        I'm not trying to steamroll you, I just disagree. I can't find a source defining free markets as requiring government intervention, I'd be really curious to e one of you have it. Adam Smith didn't think government intervention was necessary, as best I recall. He described what he called the invisible hand, but that is the natural market forces of self-interested parties not government control. I copy/paste a quote from Investopedia right now for some reason, but Smith described his opinion of the tiles of government and it specifically didn't include controlling the free market https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations/ https://www.investopedia.com/updates/adam-smith-wealth-of-na...
wahnfrieden 3y ago
capitalism relies on government to establish and enforce private property ownership/enclosure

sumuyuda 3y ago

State capitalism exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism