2 ms·

It's odd to blame capitalism for these sorts of problems. Real estate, property development, and property renting/leasing are typically some of the least-capit

It's odd to blame capitalism for these sorts of problems. Real estate, property development, and property renting/leasing are typically some of the least-capitalist and least-free-market sectors around. They all tend to involve extensive and very invasive government intervention that controls or even prevents when and how capital can be used. That's the opposite of capitalism. That's the opposite of a free market. Government-imposed zoning regulations, onerous development planning and approval processes, rent controls, licensing requirements, and other forms of interference severely inhibit the ability of the market to function properly. As government involvement in such sectors has increased over time, the situation has gotten worse and worse. Of course, inefficiency and problems are exactly what we should expect to arise due to government interference with the market. Competition becomes limited, which causes supply to become artificially constrained. This distorts the pricing, which may include collusion becoming possible. Incentives that would help drive down costs, while simultaneously increasing quality and availability, no long exist. Those calling for even more government intervention than there already is are only making the situation even worse for themselves and others.

PaulHoule 2y ago
If I remember right, the very beginning of "capitalism" was in companies like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company which was granted a monopoly in the Asia trade by the state. In general "capitalists" like "free" markets when it means they can do what they hell they want, but they very much like regulation when it is in their favor.
- sickofparadox 2y ago
  Capitalism as it was initial proposed was an explicit rejection of mercantilism, the guiding light for how colonial companies worked. You are mistaking the beginning of shareholder based ownership, which is not an intrinsic part of Capitalism, with the core concept of Capitalism.
  - PaulHoule 2y ago
    I'll grant that Adam Smith made a strong case that free trade makes people richer, that's one part of the story, but it's not the whole story. Note Wikipedia shies away from making a definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Definition "There is no universally agreed upon definition of capitalism... some doubt that the term "capitalism" possesses valid scientific dignity, and it is generally not discussed in mainstream economics... understanding of the concept of capitalism tends to be heavily influenced by opponents of capitalism and by the followers and critics of Karl Marx." I'd argue that the shareholder based ownership makes possible the vast expansion of scale which makes "modern" systems so productive. e.g. in "capitalism" somebody can accumulate capital and invest it.

PaulHoule 2y ago

If I remember right, the very beginning of "capitalism" was in companies like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company which was granted a monopoly in the Asia trade by the state. In general "capitalists" like "free" markets when it means they can do what they hell they want, but they very much like regulation when it is in their favor.

sickofparadox 2y ago
Capitalism as it was initial proposed was an explicit rejection of mercantilism, the guiding light for how colonial companies worked. You are mistaking the beginning of shareholder based ownership, which is not an intrinsic part of Capitalism, with the core concept of Capitalism.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  I'll grant that Adam Smith made a strong case that free trade makes people richer, that's one part of the story, but it's not the whole story. Note Wikipedia shies away from making a definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#Definition "There is no universally agreed upon definition of capitalism... some doubt that the term "capitalism" possesses valid scientific dignity, and it is generally not discussed in mainstream economics... understanding of the concept of capitalism tends to be heavily influenced by opponents of capitalism and by the followers and critics of Karl Marx." I'd argue that the shareholder based ownership makes possible the vast expansion of scale which makes "modern" systems so productive. e.g. in "capitalism" somebody can accumulate capital and invest it.