4 ms·

To quote the immortal words of every drama teacher and English teacher ever: "Capitalism bad."

by promiseofbeans 2y ago

dspillett 2y ago
If capitalism wants to throw off that reputation, it perhaps should try doing more good. Or at least less bad.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  Compared to who?
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Itself, obviously.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    The current reference point. “Do better” with no extra object specified means the implied subject should improve with respect to itself. Grammar only requires an extra subject in instances such as “Do better than …”. As a further example, someone talking to me might say “spend less time arguing with randoms on the Internet and performing other pointless pontification” and an listener/reader literate in the language being used would know not to need nor expect an extra subject to be specified.
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      I don’t understand. You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” because there’s a hypothetical you imagined where there could be better outcomes? Everything is “bad” by that standard. Eg, “Airplanes are bad because they don’t operate based on anti-gravity warp drives! If airplanes want to shake that reputation, they need to do better!” …do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible?
      - dspillett 2y ago
        > You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” Can you show the court, on the dolly, where dspillett said it was absolutely bad? IIRC the closest I came to that was suggesting it had a reputation for doing some bad things. Saying something can improve is not the same as saying it is absolutely bad in all imaginable ways, unless you live in a fantasy world where there is no “meh” only perfection and anti-perfection. > do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible? Not much, beyond a small and rapidly diminishing supply of hope!
- smegger001 2y ago
  Its not a capitalism thing its a.people under pressure from above thing. Look at the example of the Concord and the Tupolev TU144. The Concord was a great plane the Tupolev was a Soviet knockoff and deathtrap.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    But capitalism is structured as a system where people above put lots of pressure on people below. There are other systems that are not so top heavy that may alleviate the people-under-pressure problem. Soviets were very top heavy too.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      Perhaps you mean corporatism? Capitalism does not define a hierarchical system.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        And yet that’s exactly what happens under capitalism.
        randomdata 2y ago
        As do birthday parties.
        sobkas 2y ago
        > As do birthday parties. Capitalism is a birthday party and you're a present.
        randomdata 2y ago
        Yup, in theory, capitalism shouldn't even have hierarchies, but in practice people hate managing capital so hierarchies emerge anyway. We're reminded of that in another discussion that came up on HN[1]. Life is much, much, much easier and more enjoyable when capital is someone else's problem – when all you have to do is show up and give some time. You'll notice that the capitalism detractors never advocate for greater capital management abilities. It is always to take away such ability so that they can feel less guilty about their choice in not wanting to manage capital. Can't really blame them. Managing capital truly does suck. But it is interesting nevertheless. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255
InDubioProRubio 2y ago
It is, and it was, it always decays down to a gilded age. The only golden phase, was when it- ironically was in systemic competition and feared for its life. You need facism/socialism behind a information curtain, to get great capitalism and golden generations. Standalone, its minimal effort and monopolies all the way, decaying to some "medieval aristocratic thats the natural order peasants" state.

To quote the immortal words of every drama teacher and English teacher ever: "Capitalism bad."

dspillett 2y ago

If capitalism wants to throw off that reputation, it perhaps should try doing more good. Or at least less bad.

zmgsabst 2y ago
Compared to who?
- drawkward 2y ago
  Itself, obviously.
- dspillett 2y ago
  The current reference point. “Do better” with no extra object specified means the implied subject should improve with respect to itself. Grammar only requires an extra subject in instances such as “Do better than …”. As a further example, someone talking to me might say “spend less time arguing with randoms on the Internet and performing other pointless pontification” and an listener/reader literate in the language being used would know not to need nor expect an extra subject to be specified.
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    I don’t understand. You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” because there’s a hypothetical you imagined where there could be better outcomes? Everything is “bad” by that standard. Eg, “Airplanes are bad because they don’t operate based on anti-gravity warp drives! If airplanes want to shake that reputation, they need to do better!” …do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible?
    - dspillett 2y ago
      > You’re claiming that capitalism is “bad” Can you show the court, on the dolly, where dspillett said it was absolutely bad? IIRC the closest I came to that was suggesting it had a reputation for doing some bad things. Saying something can improve is not the same as saying it is absolutely bad in all imaginable ways, unless you live in a fantasy world where there is no “meh” only perfection and anti-perfection. > do you have any reason to believe better outcomes are actually possible? Not much, beyond a small and rapidly diminishing supply of hope!
smegger001 2y ago
Its not a capitalism thing its a.people under pressure from above thing. Look at the example of the Concord and the Tupolev TU144. The Concord was a great plane the Tupolev was a Soviet knockoff and deathtrap.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  But capitalism is structured as a system where people above put lots of pressure on people below. There are other systems that are not so top heavy that may alleviate the people-under-pressure problem. Soviets were very top heavy too.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Perhaps you mean corporatism? Capitalism does not define a hierarchical system.
    - ModernMech 2y ago
      And yet that’s exactly what happens under capitalism.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        As do birthday parties.
        sobkas 2y ago
        > As do birthday parties. Capitalism is a birthday party and you're a present.
        randomdata 2y ago
        Yup, in theory, capitalism shouldn't even have hierarchies, but in practice people hate managing capital so hierarchies emerge anyway. We're reminded of that in another discussion that came up on HN[1]. Life is much, much, much easier and more enjoyable when capital is someone else's problem – when all you have to do is show up and give some time. You'll notice that the capitalism detractors never advocate for greater capital management abilities. It is always to take away such ability so that they can feel less guilty about their choice in not wanting to manage capital. Can't really blame them. Managing capital truly does suck. But it is interesting nevertheless. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40787255

InDubioProRubio 2y ago

It is, and it was, it always decays down to a gilded age. The only golden phase, was when it- ironically was in systemic competition and feared for its life. You need facism/socialism behind a information curtain, to get great capitalism and golden generations. Standalone, its minimal effort and monopolies all the way, decaying to some "medieval aristocratic thats the natural order peasants" state.