3 ms·

Yeah, the way capitalism made goods more expensive. /s

by teekert 2y ago

rbanffy 2y ago
The way monopolies do.
- seneca 2y ago
  There is no monopoly bigger, or more expensive, than government, which was previously the only player in the space.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    Funny... Government is the only monopoly you get to elect, and the only that can be undone by voting against it.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  I don't think you can monopolize going up.
  - croes 2y ago
    If it costs a shitload of money you can.
croes 2y ago
You mean like Insulin in the US? Or healthcare or housing or education etc.?
- adventured 2y ago
  You're referring to extreme government regulation making it prohibitively expensive to start up insulin providers that compete with the established government protected monopolies. Which is anything but Capitalism in action. The same goes for healthcare in general. It's one of the most regulated sectors of the US economy and the government places an extreme cost on doing most anything in that sector through hyper regulation and very epic scale barriers to entry. The US is very far from being a Capitalist healthcare system, it's in fact the worst of both systems: it's a hyper regulated corporatist system, intentionally protected by the government from competition, captured by corporations.
  - hylaride 2y ago
    Many states even have Certificate of Need (known as CON in the industry) laws where incumbent medical providers, including whole hospitals, can effectively veto new entrants. Add in limited licensing for doctors (the number of medical spots in schools as not kept up with population) among other things and you've got a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need
    - biomcgary 2y ago
      This is part of the reason why I distinguish between free-market economics and capitalism, where the people with capital make the rules (including social capital, like current doctors). At the level of persuasion, I don't understand why people use and defend "capitalism" rather than "free-market economics".
- teekert 2y ago
  Is lobbying and a broken IP system really capitalism?
  - sham1 2y ago
    Yes. Those sorts of things are exactly the kind of skullduggery and shenanigans that the term capitalism was invented to be a critique of in the 19th century. The kinds of stuff pulled by the owning classes to secure their position and capital, up to and including influencing, and in some cases usurping, governments. I guess this would need a new term since the word has been seemingly reclaimed by the capitalists as a good thing.
    - teekert 2y ago
      Hmm yeah I use it in the spirit of Ayn Rand, free markets, free minds shouldn’t be forced etc.
      - krapp 2y ago
        A system is what that system does, not what it should ideally do in theory, but constantly fails to do in practice.
    - simonh 2y ago
      You are implicitly claiming that corruption, special interests and broken rights protections are unique problems for capitalism, unknown in non-capitalist systems. A clear eyed look at history makes it evident that if you take away private enterprise what you are left with is pretty much nothing but corruption, special interests and broken rights protections. Just look at the Soviet system, or Chinese state sector, or pretty much any thorough going socialist system ever. In non-capitalist industrial economies corruption isn't just a problem with the system, it is the system. The trick is to guarantee not just private rights to capital, but private rights full stop. Rights of ownership and economic freedoms for private citizens, sure, but also political rights, legal rights, labour rights. The full package. Capitalism on it's own isn't enough, and in fact without individual legal and political rights it's not possible to sustain meaningful individual rights to capital anyway. A good case in point in the Oligarchic system in Russia. In theory that's a capitalist system, but actually it's not. In practice individual citizens in Russia don't have meaningful capital and economic rights, if they actually try to fund and start a company that genuinely challenges the incumbents they get torn apart by the incumbents. Real capitalism means full individual rights over capital, but as with any other right that can only exist in a broadly free society.

Yeah, the way capitalism made goods more expensive. /s

rbanffy 2y ago

The way monopolies do.

seneca 2y ago
There is no monopoly bigger, or more expensive, than government, which was previously the only player in the space.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Funny... Government is the only monopoly you get to elect, and the only that can be undone by voting against it.
dialup_sounds 2y ago
I don't think you can monopolize going up.
- croes 2y ago
  If it costs a shitload of money you can.

croes 2y ago

You mean like Insulin in the US? Or healthcare or housing or education etc.?

adventured 2y ago
You're referring to extreme government regulation making it prohibitively expensive to start up insulin providers that compete with the established government protected monopolies. Which is anything but Capitalism in action. The same goes for healthcare in general. It's one of the most regulated sectors of the US economy and the government places an extreme cost on doing most anything in that sector through hyper regulation and very epic scale barriers to entry. The US is very far from being a Capitalist healthcare system, it's in fact the worst of both systems: it's a hyper regulated corporatist system, intentionally protected by the government from competition, captured by corporations.
- hylaride 2y ago
  Many states even have Certificate of Need (known as CON in the industry) laws where incumbent medical providers, including whole hospitals, can effectively veto new entrants. Add in limited licensing for doctors (the number of medical spots in schools as not kept up with population) among other things and you've got a problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_need
  - biomcgary 2y ago
    This is part of the reason why I distinguish between free-market economics and capitalism, where the people with capital make the rules (including social capital, like current doctors). At the level of persuasion, I don't understand why people use and defend "capitalism" rather than "free-market economics".
teekert 2y ago
Is lobbying and a broken IP system really capitalism?
- sham1 2y ago
  Yes. Those sorts of things are exactly the kind of skullduggery and shenanigans that the term capitalism was invented to be a critique of in the 19th century. The kinds of stuff pulled by the owning classes to secure their position and capital, up to and including influencing, and in some cases usurping, governments. I guess this would need a new term since the word has been seemingly reclaimed by the capitalists as a good thing.
  - teekert 2y ago
    Hmm yeah I use it in the spirit of Ayn Rand, free markets, free minds shouldn’t be forced etc.
    - krapp 2y ago
      A system is what that system does, not what it should ideally do in theory, but constantly fails to do in practice.
  - simonh 2y ago
    You are implicitly claiming that corruption, special interests and broken rights protections are unique problems for capitalism, unknown in non-capitalist systems. A clear eyed look at history makes it evident that if you take away private enterprise what you are left with is pretty much nothing but corruption, special interests and broken rights protections. Just look at the Soviet system, or Chinese state sector, or pretty much any thorough going socialist system ever. In non-capitalist industrial economies corruption isn't just a problem with the system, it is the system. The trick is to guarantee not just private rights to capital, but private rights full stop. Rights of ownership and economic freedoms for private citizens, sure, but also political rights, legal rights, labour rights. The full package. Capitalism on it's own isn't enough, and in fact without individual legal and political rights it's not possible to sustain meaningful individual rights to capital anyway. A good case in point in the Oligarchic system in Russia. In theory that's a capitalist system, but actually it's not. In practice individual citizens in Russia don't have meaningful capital and economic rights, if they actually try to fund and start a company that genuinely challenges the incumbents they get torn apart by the incumbents. Real capitalism means full individual rights over capital, but as with any other right that can only exist in a broadly free society.