5 ms·

> You can only do that if you have cornered the market. Which happens over and over because we humans are flawed, thus every system we create will also be flaw

by tored 3y ago

> You can only do that if you have cornered the market. Which happens over and over because we humans are flawed, thus every system we create will also be flawed. If capitalisms only works in theory then it is as good as communism.

keiferski 3y ago
Capitalism (or more specifically, elements of it like private ownership and the market economy) has resulted in the largest increase of living standards in history. See: China, India, ex-USSR countries like Poland.
- tored 3y ago
  Market economy is not necessary the same as capitalism, China is capitalist in some parts but it also a heavy state subsidized economy with a regulated market and public ownership. And the massive increase in living standard can be attributed to multiple factors that was all needed to make it possible, superposition as it is called in physics, e.g. a proper contracting framework, a literate and educated public, technological advances, deregulating markets from the old estates system, etc. We can take Sweden as a good example, yes the legislative change in 1864[1] that anyone could operate a business was crucial, but where did all the talent come from that actually created all those famous Swedish companies and inventions? Many came from the Swedish Army because Sweden was an old Great Power and the army needed many engineers to be able to build fortifications and such. Two of the most famous ones would be Nils Ericson[2] and his younger brother John Ericsson[3] But you also need qualified workers and it happens that Sweden had at the time one of the most literate population in the world because of the Swedish state church. In the old days Sweden was quite strict religiously and the Swedish state church had conducted Household Examinations since 1686[4] about general knowledge in the Bible and Luther's Small Catechism. You can't really run a modern industry with an illiterate public. Thus attributing everything to "capitalism" is gross simplification of history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_Trade_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson [4] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Answer a simple question for me: Compared to fifty years ago, are the economies of China and Poland more or less capitalist? And if the increase in the quality of life for those two places isn’t from transitioning from communist/Soviet mechanisms to more capitalist ones, what do you attribute it to?
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      You can stuff anything in a pigeonhole if you try hard enough. Sure there are Polish and Chinese capitalism, but it's at an individual level. At other levels (corporate and services etc) it's different. And so on. Describe the whole system, or we're just making sophomoric comments which don't help with understanding. "It's really just capitalism!" doesn't begin to cover the cases.
      - keiferski 3y ago
        I don’t think it’s that complicated of a question, and you’d be pretty hard pressed to argue that the economies aren’t more capitalist compared to their predecessors.
        JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Agreed. But nothing is simple; they aren't simply capitalist now.
    - tored 3y ago
      China and Poland has definitely got it better with less communism, but what is "more or less capitalist"? I also notice that you completely ignored my reply.
      - keiferski 3y ago
        I ignored the rest of your reply because I specifically used China and Poland as examples. The relevance of Sweden in the 1800s is unclear to me and you didn’t tie that to the comment chain. People on HN sometimes have this tendency to throw up a bunch of unrelated citations that have nothing to do with the main point, then expect the replies to address each one. I agree that everything can’t be summarized as a simple cause effect, but the parent comment I replied to was about comparing capitalism to communism, hence my usage of examples of states that went from communist to capitalist. In other words, this isn’t theoretical. We have examples of a capitalist state succeeding, when it was formerly communist. Again, Sweden in the 1800s is not particularly relevant here.
- TotalCrackpot 3y ago
  Consider that USSR was always a capitalist country, we didn't really have socialism in a lot of places, we mostly had Marxist-Leninist state capitalist states that nationalize means of production, still leaving for example the wage work relation intact.
freefaler 3y ago
It works not in theory, but in practice. And the main reason is the freedom inherit in swapping goods for money by the 2 sides by their own will. The freedom to choose where to invest your money gives the capitalism inherently more freedom that any other centralized system of distribution. Communism can't work because economic inefficiency kills the system. Look at Russia and Ukraine now, during Soviet times after 1970 they imported grain, now they're one of the biggest exporters. It's not only technology, it's the "capitalism" at work. In USSR, only 3% of land produced almost all fruits and vegs in the market, because the collective farms were given the permission to allow private land use and selling of produce on the market. They needed to give the collective farm a certain percentage of the crops, but what they kept they could've sold. Again capitalism at work... Efficiency was trough the roof.
- tored 3y ago
  Sure, if we two meet in the forest and I swap my piece of fur for some dried meat it is a win. But the problem with capitalism is that in the long run it starts to centralize in a similar manner as communism for efficiency and thus goes against the "Local knowledge problem"[1] As a result what typically happens is that general quality goes down and that is what we observe can right now. Please also read my other response in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39978645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39978645 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem

by tored 3y ago

keiferski 3y ago

Capitalism (or more specifically, elements of it like private ownership and the market economy) has resulted in the largest increase of living standards in history. See: China, India, ex-USSR countries like Poland.

tored 3y ago
Market economy is not necessary the same as capitalism, China is capitalist in some parts but it also a heavy state subsidized economy with a regulated market and public ownership. And the massive increase in living standard can be attributed to multiple factors that was all needed to make it possible, superposition as it is called in physics, e.g. a proper contracting framework, a literate and educated public, technological advances, deregulating markets from the old estates system, etc. We can take Sweden as a good example, yes the legislative change in 1864[1] that anyone could operate a business was crucial, but where did all the talent come from that actually created all those famous Swedish companies and inventions? Many came from the Swedish Army because Sweden was an old Great Power and the army needed many engineers to be able to build fortifications and such. Two of the most famous ones would be Nils Ericson[2] and his younger brother John Ericsson[3] But you also need qualified workers and it happens that Sweden had at the time one of the most literate population in the world because of the Swedish state church. In the old days Sweden was quite strict religiously and the Swedish state church had conducted Household Examinations since 1686[4] about general knowledge in the Bible and Luther's Small Catechism. You can't really run a modern industry with an illiterate public. Thus attributing everything to "capitalism" is gross simplification of history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_Trade_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson [4] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r
- keiferski 3y ago
  Answer a simple question for me: Compared to fifty years ago, are the economies of China and Poland more or less capitalist? And if the increase in the quality of life for those two places isn’t from transitioning from communist/Soviet mechanisms to more capitalist ones, what do you attribute it to?
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    You can stuff anything in a pigeonhole if you try hard enough. Sure there are Polish and Chinese capitalism, but it's at an individual level. At other levels (corporate and services etc) it's different. And so on. Describe the whole system, or we're just making sophomoric comments which don't help with understanding. "It's really just capitalism!" doesn't begin to cover the cases.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I don’t think it’s that complicated of a question, and you’d be pretty hard pressed to argue that the economies aren’t more capitalist compared to their predecessors.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Agreed. But nothing is simple; they aren't simply capitalist now.
  - tored 3y ago
    China and Poland has definitely got it better with less communism, but what is "more or less capitalist"? I also notice that you completely ignored my reply.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I ignored the rest of your reply because I specifically used China and Poland as examples. The relevance of Sweden in the 1800s is unclear to me and you didn’t tie that to the comment chain. People on HN sometimes have this tendency to throw up a bunch of unrelated citations that have nothing to do with the main point, then expect the replies to address each one. I agree that everything can’t be summarized as a simple cause effect, but the parent comment I replied to was about comparing capitalism to communism, hence my usage of examples of states that went from communist to capitalist. In other words, this isn’t theoretical. We have examples of a capitalist state succeeding, when it was formerly communist. Again, Sweden in the 1800s is not particularly relevant here.
TotalCrackpot 3y ago
Consider that USSR was always a capitalist country, we didn't really have socialism in a lot of places, we mostly had Marxist-Leninist state capitalist states that nationalize means of production, still leaving for example the wage work relation intact.

freefaler 3y ago

It works not in theory, but in practice. And the main reason is the freedom inherit in swapping goods for money by the 2 sides by their own will. The freedom to choose where to invest your money gives the capitalism inherently more freedom that any other centralized system of distribution. Communism can't work because economic inefficiency kills the system. Look at Russia and Ukraine now, during Soviet times after 1970 they imported grain, now they're one of the biggest exporters. It's not only technology, it's the "capitalism" at work. In USSR, only 3% of land produced almost all fruits and vegs in the market, because the collective farms were given the permission to allow private land use and selling of produce on the market. They needed to give the collective farm a certain percentage of the crops, but what they kept they could've sold. Again capitalism at work... Efficiency was trough the roof.

tored 3y ago
Sure, if we two meet in the forest and I swap my piece of fur for some dried meat it is a win. But the problem with capitalism is that in the long run it starts to centralize in a similar manner as communism for efficiency and thus goes against the "Local knowledge problem"[1] As a result what typically happens is that general quality goes down and that is what we observe can right now. Please also read my other response in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39978645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39978645 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem